ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL 2013 ...... 23109 ADJOURNMENT ...... 23150 AGED CARE FACILITIES REGULATION ...... 23125 AGED CARE WORKER WAGE RATES ...... 23129 ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 23106 ASSISTED BOARDING HOUSE COMPLIANCE MONITORING ...... 23123 BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS ...... 23145 BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING ...... 23121, 23132 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 23117 CHILE COUP D'ÉTAT FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY ...... 23151, 23152 COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION ...... 23108 DADS4KIDS FATHERHOOD FOUNDATION ...... 23153 DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ERNST AND YOUNG REPORT23108 FEDERAL ELECTION 2013 ...... 23127, 23150, 23154 FIRE STATION CLOSURES ...... 23128 GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4 ...... 23137 HUNTER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY ...... 23125 HUNTERS HILL CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH PROPERTY TRUST BILL 2013 ...... 23106 INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ...... 23106 INDEPENDENT PRICING AND REGULATORY TRIBUNAL ...... 23108 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS ...... 23132 LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE ...... 23108 LIVING LIFE MY WAY DISABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM ...... 23124 M4 MOTORWAY TOLL...... 23124 MINISTRY ...... 23106 MOUNT OUSLEY ROAD UPGRADE ...... 23124 MY CHOICE MATTERS DISABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM ...... 23128 NEWCASTLE PORT CORPORATION ...... 23129 NEWCASTLE TOURLE STREET BRIDGE ...... 23122 PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY ...... 23107 PETITIONS ...... 23108 POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION...... 23106 PORT BOTANY FREIGHT PROJECTS ...... 23121 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 23121 REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS ...... 23121 REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ...... 23107 ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 23123 SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (LICENCES) BILL 2013 ...... 23117 SELECT COMMITTEE INTO MINISTERIAL PROPRIETY IN NEW SOUTH WALES ...... 23109 SELECT COMMITTEE ON GREYHOUND RACING IN NEW SOUTH WALES ...... 23108 SHOALHAVEN BRIDGE UPGRADE ...... 23131 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT ...... 23140 STATUS OF WOMEN ...... 23153 SUGARLOAF STATE CONSERVATION AREA MINE SUBSIDENCE...... 23127 TABLING OF PAPERS ...... 23108, 23132 TRIBUTE TO MR TERENCE FRANCIS HEIDTMANN ...... 23107 WESTERN SYDNEY ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 23130
23106
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 10 September 2013
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.
The President read the Prayers.
The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2013 Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste Disposal) Bill 2013 Road Transport Amendment (Electronic Traffic Infringement Notices Trial) Bill 2013 State Emergency and Rescue Management Amendment (Co-ordination and Notification of Rescues) Bill 2013 Totalizator Amendment (Exclusivity) Bill 2013
HUNTERS HILL CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH PROPERTY TRUST BILL 2013
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, a report entitled, "Investigation into the Conduct of Ian Macdonald, John Maitland and Others", dated August 2013, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 30 August 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, a report entitled, "Report to Parliament: Operation Barmouth", dated September 2013 and authorised to be made public this day.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
MINISTRY
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I inform the House that on 28 August 2013 Her Excellency the Governor accepted the resignation of the Hon. Graham Annesley, MP, as Minister for Sport and Recreation. I inform the House further that on 13 August 2013 Her Excellency the Governor appointed the Hon. Gabrielle Upton, MP, as Minister for Sport and Recreation.
10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23107
REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I inform the House that in respect to the representation of Government responsibilities in this Chamber the Hon. John Ajaka, MLC, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra, will represent the Hon. Gabrielle Upton, MP, Minister for Sport and Recreation in the other place.
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I inform the House that on 2 September 2013 Mr Mark Speakman, MP, was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for Tertiary Education and Skills.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
TRIBUTE TO MR TERENCE FRANCIS HEIDTMANN
Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:
(1) That this House notes with sadness that on 13 August 2013 Penrith Panthers' Executive Director Mr Terence Francis (Terry) Heidtmann passed away at home following a short illness.
(2) That this House notes that:
(a) Mr Heidtmann was born in 1941 at West Wyalong, played rugby league and cricket at Lewisham High School and played in the first team at the Mixed Catholic Schools carnivals;
(b) after leaving school, Mr Heidtmann played cricket and rugby league at Stroud, Maitland and Newcastle where he represented the district;
(c) Mr Heidtmann was contracted by Penrith Rugby League and in 1964 and 1965 he played in the New South Wales second division competition, which was the highest level of rugby league in the Penrith District at that time;
(d) Mr Heidtmann was captain and coach of the Penrith Reserve Grade team in 1966 at the same time Leo Trevena was coach of the A grade side; unfortunately, his team was beaten in extra time in the grand final;
(e) when Penrith was admitted to the New South Wales first division competition in 1967, Mr Heidtmann was appointed third grade captain and had the honour of being the first Panthers player onto the field to represent the club;
(f) Mr Heidtmann also played at Camden, Lithgow Workers and St Marys;
(g) following retirement from playing, Mr Heidtmann became extensively involved in Penrith's administration and was elected to the Panthers Board in 1984, was elected Deputy Chairman of the Board in 2002 and continued to serve on the board up until his passing on 12 August 2013, served on many sub-committees, maintained a close and strong involvement with rugby league, and was a patron of the Penrith junior league;
(h) Mr Don Feltis, Chair of Penrith Panthers, stated on Mr Heidtmann's passing that, "Terry was a unique person. He was witty, intelligent, friendly and offered an opinion and viewpoint about issues that few other persons possessed";
(i) Mr Heidtmann was honoured with life membership of the Penrith Panthers in 1995 and was also honoured as 2009 Penrith Citizen of the Year by Penrith Council;
(j) Mr Heidtmann was also the proud recipient of a number of community and business awards and a pioneer of Panthers and rugby league in this district;
(k) Mr Heidtmann served for more than 20 years on the committee of the Penrith and Districts Basketball Association, just one of his many notable contributions to various sporting association in the area;
(l) in addition to his contributions to rugby league, Mr Heidtmann was also passionate about and invested much of his time into real estate, serving more than 30 years on the Real Estate Employers' Federation of New South Wales, and was the second member to be inducted into the REEF Hall of Fame; and
(m) Mr Heidtmann was the owner and manager of the family run Professionals Real Estate business in Penrith for more than 40 years and is survived by his wife, Monica, and children Tracey, Ross, Richard and Maree, and grandchildren Nicholas, Luke, Paul, Jackson, Lincoln, Lana, Chloe, Monique, Isabelle, Lucas, Jay and Sophie.
(3) That this House acknowledges and commends Mr Terence Francis (Terry) Heidtmann for the outstanding contribution he made to Rugby League and the community of Penrith and extends its sincere sympathy to his family, loved ones and friend on the sad loss of a fine gentleman.
23108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. John Ajaka tabled the following paper:
(1) Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992—Report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal entitled, "Compliance and Operations of the NSW Energy Savings Scheme during 2012: Report to Minister—Energy Savings Scheme, dated July 2013.
INDEPENDENT PRICING AND REGULATORY TRIBUNAL
Report
The Hon. John Ajaka tabled, pursuant to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992, a report entitled, "Compliance and Operation of the NSW Energy Savings Scheme during 2012—Report to Minister", dated July 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Ajaka.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps tabled the report entitled, "Legislation Review Digest No. 43/55", dated 10 September 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps.
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report
The Hon. Paul Green tabled report No. 2/55 entitled, "Inquiry into Health Care Complaints and Complaint Handling in NSW", dated August 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Paul Green.
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ERNST AND YOUNG REPORT
Production of Documents: Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of the House of Thursday 22 August 2013, documents relating to the Ernst and Young report, "Department of Family and Community Services, Human Resources Capacity Calculation and Reporting" received on Thursday 5 September 2013 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.
PETITIONS
Strategic Regional Land Use Policy
A petition requesting that the House declare the mid North Coast areas referred to in recent Group 1 mineral mining applications as sensitive and off limits to mining projects, received from the Hon. Melinda Pavey.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON GREYHOUND RACING IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Membership
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received the following nominations for membership of the Select Committee on Greyhound Racing in New South Wales:
Government members: Ms Ficarra Mr Trevor Khan Mrs Natasha Maclaren-Jones
Opposition members: Ms Lynda Voltz Mr Steve Whan
10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23109
SELECT COMMITTEE INTO MINISTERIAL PROPRIETY IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Membership
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received advice from the Leader of the Government that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has replaced the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox as a member of the Select Committee into Ministerial Propriety in New South Wales.
ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 August 2013.
The Hon. WALT SECORD [2.57 p.m.]: I refer to the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill 2013. Therefore, it is particularly apt that I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we have gathered, the Gadigal people, and pay my respects to them and their elders past and present. The Labor Opposition supports this bill. It cuts red tape and fixes some anomalies that have crept up over the past five years involving the operation of Aboriginal land councils. This is not a controversial bill. Furthermore, I understand that the registrar of land rights in New South Wales and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, led by Chairperson Stephen Ryan, support these amendments. New South Wales has about 119 land councils. They are to be the voice of Aboriginal people on a range of land-related issues, including a range of matters such as cultural heritage.
Every four years members of local Aboriginal land councils vote for a councillor to represent their region. Elections for local Aboriginal land councils are held every two years. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council is the largest member-based Aboriginal organisation in New South Wales and is the roof body for all land councils. The most recent data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics released in 2011 shows that the resident population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in New South Wales is 172,625, up from 138,507 in 2006. That is an increase of 24.6 per cent and the largest population of any State or Territory in Australia. This represents 31.5 per cent of the total national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of 548,370. More than one in three—36.3 per cent—Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders in New South Wales were under 15 years of age and just 4.2 per cent of the population were aged 65 years and over.
I come to this legislation from a unique perspective. While I appear to be of northern European descent my upbringing, cultural background and heritage is drawn overwhelmingly from my father, who is an Indigenous Canadian. My father belongs to two Indigenous First Nations in Canada: his mother was a lower Mohawk from the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory and his father was from the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, a sub-tribe of the Ojibway Nation. These are two proud tribes. Due to the uniqueness of his background he belongs to two groupings: Mohawks have maternal lineal descent and Ojibway have paternal lineal descent.
While I proudly draw on my cultural background, I think of myself as entirely Australian. Drawing on diverse backgrounds to form a single nation is the very essence of Australia. It is Australia's democratic golden thread. It is Australia's unique selling proposition. It is Australia's economic strength. It is Australia's true heritage. Anyone who fails to fully grasp this fails, in my view, to fully respect the meaning of the Australian nation. We are, no matter our length of tenure, all descendants of immigrants—with one notable exception: Australia's Indigenous citizens. The exceptional injustice that was initially afforded them now justifies an exceptional response of support and this Parliament has a strong record in that regard. Some 30 years ago the historic Aboriginal Land Rights Act commenced its operation under the Wran Labor Government. The Act provides for a five-yearly statutory review to determine whether its policy objectives remain valid and whether its terms remain appropriate for securing those objectives.
Members will be aware that work on this bill began under the Keneally Government. By way of background, in 1978 the Wran Government set up a Select Committee on Aborigines headed by Mr Maurice Keane, who was the member for Woronora in the Sutherland shire. The Keane committee was to report on land rights, sacred sites, socio-economic issues and State-Commonwealth relations. The Keane committee focused initially on land rights issues and conducted public consultation throughout the State. In its first report, released in 1980, the Keane committee recommended that land rights be provided on the basis of need and as compensation for land lost, as well as on the basis of prior ownership and tradition. Following that report there was sustained community activism for the implementation of its recommendations on land rights. 23110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
In 1983 the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act was enacted. The Act created a three-tiered structure of local, regional and State Aboriginal land councils; set up a lands claim process, including defining what lands were classed as claimable; and provided for the provision of 7.5 per cent of land tax collected in New South Wales for the 15 years from 1983 to 1998 to be paid into a statutory investment fund managed by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council as compensation for lost land. During this period half of the funds were available for land acquisition and administration. The remainder was deposited into a statutory account to build a capital fund to provide ongoing funding in the future. The network is not, as is widely believed, funded by the taxpayers of New South Wales. The total funds allocated were $537 million and of this amount $268.5 million was deposited into the statutory account. Since 1998 the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and the land council network have been self-supporting.
The Aboriginal Land Rights Act has undergone significant revision since its enactment. However, the core principles embodied in the preamble and purposes of the Act remain. That Act was rightly seen as a significant achievement of the Wran Government, and Mr Wran can feel justly proud. For the record, I take this opportunity to point out that former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr was one of the first political leaders in Australia to recognise the Stolen Generation. He did so in June 1997 and, I might add, against strong advice from the Cabinet Office, which warned that there would be a flood of claims. That did not happen. Mr Carr held his ground and delivered a historic apology, just like the historic national apology delivered by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on behalf of the nation some years later. As I said earlier, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 is subject to a five-yearly statutory review.
The objects of this bill are to clarify the functions of land councils; alter the requirements relating to the advertising of staff vacancies; clarify the provisions relating to the disqualification of a person to hold the office of a member of a local Aboriginal land council; change the basis on which community development levies payable in relation to certain transactions of local Aboriginal land councils are calculated, which is important; and make other miscellaneous amendments aimed at improving the administration of the principal Act and of Aboriginal land councils. These amendments are non-controversial. They rectify cumbersome situations arising out of casual vacancies on land councils and a number of other administrative matters. Other changes relate to removing travelling and other allowances from the list of expenditures that may be paid out of the account of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to local board members and onerous and difficult rules relating to advertising regulations for vacancies. The Opposition supports the bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD [3.05 p.m.]: I support the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill and commend the Minister for his heartfelt commitment to empower the Aboriginal communities of this State. I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we debate this bill. I pay my respects to the Aboriginal elders past and present on this land and across the country. Minister Dominello noted in his second reading speech that the original legislation is 30 years old. Indeed, it was a landmark development that recognised the original custodians of this country and their rights.
In late 2011 Minister Dominello began the five-yearly statutory review of the Act principally to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. To assist in this important work a working group was established comprising the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, two members of local Aboriginal land councils and representatives from New South Wales government agencies such as Aboriginal Affairs and the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries. This group was chaired by the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The bill proposes to update a range of governance and administrative arrangements to modernise and improve the efficiency of the Act. I will highlight a few of the many changes proposed:
Schedule 1 [15] amends section 63 of the principal Act to provide that a person is not qualified to stand for election, or to be elected, as a member of the Board of a LALC if he or she has not attended at least 2 meetings of the Council in the preceding 12 months.
Schedule 1 [17] and [18] amend section 65 of the principal Act to extend the requirement for the NSWALC to arrange certain training for new members of the Board of a LALC so that training will be required to be arranged for all members of the Board.
These types of changes are particularly important as local Aboriginal land councils engage in more commercial enterprises and help their communities reach full economic participation. In my inaugural speech I spoke on these issues and after 2½ years in this place my conviction is only stronger—namely, the unacceptable gap in Aboriginal health and welfare will only be narrowed and eventually eliminated by grasping all the economic opportunities available. To this end, I am very pleased to talk to visionary leaders such as Councillor Tom Briggs, Steve Widders and Margaret Walford from Armidale, who understand their organisations need to be 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23111
representative, have high governance and management standards, and build capacity. Aboriginal land corporations are looking for opportunities. They do not just want to be passive recipients of dividends or royalties but fully engaged economic participants.
Aboriginal leaders in my part of New South Wales are investigating exploration and partnership possibilities in mining and coal seam gas. To fulfil these economic dreams, the structure and function of the local Aboriginal land corporations need to be of the highest standard. These amendments are practical and timely. We can all look forward to a stronger future for the Aboriginal people of New South Wales. On Tuesday I attended the last forum of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act review held in Tamworth. In attendance were Minister Dominello and a range of representatives from local Aboriginal land councils from the northern area. I took great heart from that vigorous forum—their attitude is changing from being victims to wanting to be economic partners.
Obviously, they are advocating for their rights and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is very dear to them. This was a robust forum, but I thought the Minister handled particularly well some questions that came up on issues such as compensation. He put back to the forum that we can talk about compensation forever, but said the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is empowering Aboriginal communities to be economic participants in their own right. I noted at the forum the goodwill and appreciation—I do not think I was misreading it—of Minister Dominello, who is on top of his brief and wants a better land rights Act. I think the forum bodes well for the proposed amended Act later in the year. I commend this bill to the House.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [3.10 p.m.]: I will make a very short contribution to this debate and along with my colleagues I support the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill 2013. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Gadigal people, on whose land we stand, and express my respects to the elders, past and present. This bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. I note it took Minister Dominello some time to get this Act together. I note there was necessary community consultation to get it to this point. In December 2011 Minister Dominello commenced a five-yearly statutory review of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid, and whether the terms of the Act remained appropriate for securing those objectives. This review was positively received by members of the Indigenous community, and that is reflected in the comments made by the Chairman of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Chairman Ryan made the following points, as were quoted in the speech of the Hon. Melinda Pavey:
In this the 30th anniversary year of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, it is appropriate to be taking steps to ensure that Aboriginal land right in New South Wales remain strong for the next 30 years.
The proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act are the first critical reforms in an ongoing process of reviewing this landmark legislation. This process has been driven by the vision of the New South Wales Government, working collaboratively with the experience of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and Aboriginal Affairs NSW. It is a reform process that will deliver a more effective legislative framework for Aboriginal land rights in New South Wales.
So there is critical support from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. The main objectives of this bill are to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 to clarify which functions of a local Aboriginal land council may be exercised by the board of the local Aboriginal land council and to alter the provisions relating to the delegation of functions by the chief executive officer of a local Aboriginal land council; to alter the requirements in relation to the advertising of staff vacancies for local Aboriginal land councils and the qualifications of persons to fill those vacancies; and to clarify the provisions relating to the disqualification of a person to hold the office of a member of a local Aboriginal land council or the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and the filling of vacancies in those offices. I will not read the other objectives of the bill; my colleagues have already put the key aspects of the bill on record.
Overall, the proposed amendments to the Act do, as explained by previous speakers, go some way towards addressing problems raised by the New South Wales Aboriginal land councils. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support in this Chamber for these amendments to the Aboriginal land rights legislation. I note that the local Aboriginal land councils have requested many of the amendments that are included in this bill although the bill does not resolve all of the issues raised by local Aboriginal land councils in relation to use of their land. As my colleague the Hon. Lynda Voltz noted, some councils want greater ability to develop and use their land.
I make one final point: Australia's reputation when it comes to its Indigenous people has not been a highlight. It falls short of international human rights and the standards required under our international obligations to our Indigenous people. I note that the Federal election attracted some discussion about our 23112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
Indigenous people; I hope the incoming government generally addresses many of the concerns, needs and demands of our Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians need not live in poverty, they need not be discriminated against, and they need not be incarcerated in the way they are. They need to be treated with the respect that all Australians deserve.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [3.14 p.m.]: I will make a contribution to debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill 2013. Before I do that, however, there are some a priori things that need to be discussed. Firstly, before 1788 people lived here; people lived on this continent. They may not have had physical markers that delineated their territory, but they understood that the land was theirs. Whether it was held through custom or by force majeure, the fact was they understood the land to be theirs. From 1788 onwards, they were pushed off that land—by a combination of superior military force, disease and a host of other reasons—and this left them dispossessed of that land. There are three great natural law rights and they are expressed this way: all men are created equal; they are endowed with certain inalienable rights; and amongst these are life, liberty and the ownership of property.
This bill is relatively uncontroversial, but I would like to go back and look at the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in this State to check whether this still remains an appropriate structure for today. I am distressed that the underlying structure for Aboriginal compensation for the expropriation of their land remains rigidly communalistic. We are told that self-determination is the underlying theme of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and it is unique in providing members of local Aboriginal land councils with real powers to utilise their landholdings for the purposes of economic development—but only as a collectivist entity. It is local Aboriginal land councils, not individual Aborigines, which have the statutory functions for the acquisition, management, control and disposal of land.
Would this situation be tolerated in the broader white community? Would members be happy to have their house and land held at the whim of a collective? Perhaps in some hippie commune on the North Coast they might, but people there have of their own volition freely entered into such collective arrangements—and good luck to them. But there has been no compulsion. It is my hope that we move away from this collectivist arrangement and promote individual land title amongst Aborigines. I ask myself: Should the Liberal Party be entrenching communalism or should it be promoting individualism? In that regard, I refer to an article written by Noel Pearson in 2011. He wrote:
It may be that this levelling dynamic is unproblematic for such cultures in their state of native innocence. But it becomes a problem when hunter-gatherers are colonised and become incorporated into dominant market society and capitalism. The premium placed on individual freedom in market capitalist systems comes into conflict with communalist traditions and dynamics, and makes it hard for people coming from communal cultures.
He further states:
Economists would point to the structures of indigenous communities that generate free riding by the rest of the community on the efforts and enterprise of individuals. Whether it is the communalism of indigenous cultures or it is the product of the history (and present-day continuation) of bureaucratic collectivism—or both—there is no doubt in my mind the relationship between individuals and their society in indigenous communities in Australia is not viable.
That was Noel Pearson in 2011. In the current context, a communal holding does not mean in practice that everybody owns it: it means no-one owns it. And if no-one owns it, nobody cares for it. I will make this point clearly: I believe the descendants of people whose land was expropriated without compensation should be recompensed for that expropriation. It is a fundamental tenet of my personal philosophy—as it should be for every Liberal Party member—that government has no right to take property without providing adequate compensation. Black, white, red, yellow—the natural law right to own property is inalienable.
I will provide an analogy for those members of my own party who disagree with land rights compensation. Say, for example, a Polish aristocrat had a Picasso painting and it was stolen by the Red Army when it invaded in 1939. Seventy years later, following the fall of communism, a descendant of that Polish aristocrat discovered that the Picasso was in a Russian museum. Is there anyone who would deny the legitimacy of that Polish descendent demanding the return of the painting? Of course not.
However, what if the painting had been destroyed and was unrecoverable? The moral approach would be for the Russian Government to provide a similar painting in compensation. However, what if the Picasso had been bought from the Russian Government by a wealthy private citizen? The Polish descendent could not demand the return of the original because one expropriation never justifies another. One would hope that out of the goodness of his heart the oligarch might return it, but he might not. 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23113
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order: The member is straying well outside the leave of the bill. In fact, he is not within a whisker of the long title.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: I am demonstrating the strength of my argument by using an analogy.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no point of order. Members are allowed broad scope when making a contribution to second reading debates.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: If the honourable member is too dense to understand the analogy then that is his problem.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The Government Whip's comment was offensive and unparliamentary, and it should be withdrawn.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! In my view the Government Whip did not direct the comment at a specific member. However if he had, he would have to withdraw it. I ask him to be courteous.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: If any offence was taken by members opposite to my comment that they are too dense to understand my analogy, I withdraw. If the Picasso had been sold to an oligarch, one would hope that out of the goodness of his heart he might return it, but he might not. In that case, the Russian Government would have no right to force him to do so. Again, it would be morally obliged to relinquish a comparable work by way of compensation for the original dispossession.
The analogy with regard to Aboriginal land claims is obviously clear. How anyone could not see it is beyond my comprehension. Where Crown land exists and is desired, it should be granted—that means all unimproved Crown land, including national parks and State forests. That is the only way to give Aborigines a long-term economic base that frees them from welfare dependency. In that regard, I draw members' attention to the Wreck Bay community on the South Coast, which successfully operates the Booderee National Park. Its website states:
The long term goal of the Community is to establish an economic base to ensure that the future provides an opportunity for the community's children to adapt to society in general whilst maintaining a link with our past.
That should be the nature of land rights grants by way of recompense. Moreover, any such recompense should be done on a large scale and should be part of full and final settlement for Aboriginal dispossession. To that end, all government-owned land should be consolidated into a single holding in a single portfolio. That should be followed by the passage of an Aboriginal land Act along the lines of the United States Homestead Act. This Act would in turn allow for a full and final settlement of claims against expropriation by allowing anyone who identifies as Aboriginal to claim any amount of government land, including national parks, as private freehold.
Despite singing "It's time to pay the rent" and "It's time to pay our share" for years, the Left would be outraged at that proposal. Its members would be appalled that their scenic bushwalks might be compromised if they were turned over to Aboriginal Australians for private economic development. However, only individuals should be able to claim parcels of land, thereby removing the so-called "problem of the commons" from collective-based ownership. Many might decide to band together in cooperative, communal or even corporate relationships, but no-one should be forced to do so. Some might pick vast productive rural holdings near Bourke and some might pick tiny areas in Lane Cove River Park. While inevitably there will be competing claims, they can all be resolved without the need for long judicial processes.
However, following the compensation for past expropriations, just like non-Aborigines, people should be expected to make use of that resource. Fortunes may be made and lost, just like non-Aboriginal people make and lose fortunes. Land will be developed or left as is, just like land owned by non-Aboriginal people is developed or left as it is. Any remaining government land could then be disposed of or used as the Government saw fit. This will mean a new Aboriginal economic empowerment and a new boom in housing, mining, forestry, drilling and a host of other primary industries. That in turn will result in cascading economic, social and cultural benefits for the entire community—Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. However, this prosperity can work only if the land is given to individuals, not to collectives. If those involved want to collectivise subsequently then that should be a decision for the individuals concerned, not the Government. As we have seen, Aboriginal disadvantage is not solved by institutionalised collectivisation. 23114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
I worry that some members of the Left want a stratified Aboriginal underclass that will embrace revolutionary ideology, and material progress for Aboriginals cuts across their broader agenda. There are those who like to wear their hearts on their sleeve implicitly to assert their moral superiority through their concern, empathy and pity for the Aboriginal underclass. What are their policy prescriptions? They inevitably involve more government handouts. We cannot keep a cultural group in amber and expect its members to rise from impoverishment. I reject that fetishist primitivism and that noble savage idolatry. Despite the call for land, land, land in the past, we have not listened. In some respects we have dealt with the Aboriginal community cruelly. It is like giving someone a Ferrari and telling them that they can look at it, polish it and sit in it, but never drive it.
That is what we have done in the past by allowing Aborigines access to national parks only to have a white bureaucrat in Sydney tell them that they cannot use them for their material advancement because a frog, a tree or a lizard is more important than their future economic security. I contrast this with the approach I believe we should take. We must dismantle the welfare state, remove the sit-down money and address the culture of grog and violence by providing just compensation and saying, "We expect you to work"—and they will because that is what they want to do. Only then will we be on a journey of Aboriginal economic liberation into the future.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.28 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill 2013. The Hon. Peter Phelps made a genuine and thoughtful contribution. Aboriginal communities face many challenges and they realise that those challenges must be addressed. They also acknowledge that some of the policies that have been implemented have not worked. The Government has made a commitment to address the Aboriginal health statistics in New South Wales, but we need fundamental change and improvement in the overall delivery of government policy to achieve that. Although the Hon. Peter Phelps made some uncomfortable suggestions, at least he made us think.
I also thank the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Hon. Jan Barham, the Hon. Niall Blair, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Walt Secord, Mr Scot MacDonald and the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane for their contributions to debate on this bill. If there is one thing that brings us all together it is a desire to achieve better outcomes in our Aboriginal communities with respect to health, welfare and wellbeing. We should acknowledge that because, strangely enough, when members in this Chamber work together they do so very well. In particular I highlight recent comments in the debate on vaccination which contributed to some good outcomes and to some good public debate.
Whilst these amendments are minor in nature the administrative burden that they will lift cannot be understated. The flexibility achieved by these amendments will enable the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to exercise its funding allocation instead of being caught up in excessive administrative red tape, with no benefit. Amendments include the repeal of provisions that require the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and local Aboriginal land councils to notify the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministers administering the Crown Lands Act 1989 of their land dealings. This amendment will remove an unnecessary and time-wasting administrative task that serves no purpose. Those Ministers have no powers in relation to the land-dealing provisions of the Act, and thus do not need to be notified of such dealings.
Other examples include the removal of the current onerous and, no doubt, costly requirement to advertise in both Indigenous and statewide newspapers. This measure is overly rigid and an avoidable cost borne by Aboriginal land councils. Another simple amendment to section 153 enables local Aboriginal land councils to choose their auditors from a list kept by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. As independent corporations, local Aboriginal land councils should have the independence and autonomy to appoint appropriately qualified auditors that they feel best suit their needs rather than have them appointed directly by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.
I thank the key players—including the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and the staff of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Primary Industries—who have invested their time and expertise in the development of this bill. Most importantly, on behalf of the Minister I make special mention of and offer my thanks to the two representatives from local Aboriginal land councils, Mr Sean Gordon, Chief Executive Officer of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council and Ms Stacey Meredith, Aboriginal owner and member of Griffith Local Aboriginal Land Council who generously provided their insight and local knowledge. Without local input and knowledge we could not possibly have expected to make the great strides offered by these amendments. The amendment in this bill to the Land Rights Act will benefit the land rights network and Aboriginal communities throughout New South Wales. 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23115
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.32 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 on sheet C2013-083D in globo:
No. 1 Page 2, clause 2 (2), lines 7 and 8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(2) The amendment of section 63, and the repeal of sections 162 (3) and 163, of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 by this Act commence on 1 January 2014.
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [12], lines 25–30. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Page 5, schedule 1 [15]. Insert after line 25:
(2B) A person may nominate another person to stand for election as a Board member of a Local Aboriginal Land Council if, at the time of the nomination, all of the following apply to the person:
(a) the person is a voting member of the Council, and
(b) the person is not suspended from membership of the Council, and
(c) the person has attended at least 2 meetings of the Council in the last 12 months.
No. 4 Page 10, schedule 1 [40], proposed section 144 (2), lines 5 and 6. Omit "or an officer of a Local Aboriginal Land Council".
No. 5 Page 10, schedule 1 [40], proposed section 144 (2), line 8. Omit "or officer".
In summary, amendment No. 1 delays the commencement of the repeal of section 163 until 1 January 2013 in order to give the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council time to put administrative measures in place. This is the repeal of the section which says that the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council must cease funding to a local Aboriginal land council if it is in breach of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act—even a minor breach. So amendment No. 1 is sensible and allows appropriate time for planning and administrative measures around implementation. Amendment No. 2 amends the requirement in the bill for voting members to have attended two meetings in the past 12 months to be able to vote in the local Aboriginal land council board elections. Thus the amendment restores the current provision that to vote in local Aboriginal land council board elections voting members must have attended at least two meetings in the previous 12-month period. The removal of this requirement is a common-sense change to improve the functionality of the land councils.
Amendment No. 3 amends the bill by adding the requirement that to nominate another person to stand for election as a board member the nominator must have attended at least two meetings in the previous 12-month period. As the next biannual local Aboriginal land council board elections are due in September 2013—this month—delaying the commencement of this provision will not penalise persons otherwise entitled to vote in the September 2013 elections, and will allow persons to comply with the new provisions by September 2015. This amendment to the bill implements a recommendation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act review working group. The initial exclusion of this item from the bill was a departure from the working group recommendation after consultation with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.
However, at the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council conference held in June 2013 representatives from all the 120 local Aboriginal land councils were in attendance. There was overwhelming support for a provision prohibiting members from voting, nominating persons to stand and standing in board elections if they had not attended at least two meetings in the previous 12-month period. Amendments Nos 4 and 5—item [40] of the bill—corrects a drafting oversight in the bill to ensure that employees of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council are not disqualified from being board members of the local Aboriginal land councils.
The Hon. MICK VEITCH [3.36 p.m.]: The Opposition supports these Government amendments. It is important to put on the record that we received a briefing from the Government regarding these amendments, 23116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
although we note that they were only circulated during today's debate. Clearly, these are common-sense amendments to tidy up some drafting oversights contained in the bill, as enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary in her contribution to debate. It also brings the bill into line with a recommendation of the working group, which is quite important. That is supported by the local Aboriginal land councils across the State. As I said at the outset the Opposition supports these amendments.
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [3.37 p.m.]: The Greens also support the amendments but would like to place on the record some comments about them. The amendments that relate to the eligibility to vote in elections are sensible. We note that section 55 (4) (a) precludes voting members of a local Aboriginal land council from voting in an election of board members if they have not attended at least two meetings. We note that the initial thinking on the original amendment was that there was a desire to remove barriers to participation in land council affairs. However, the State conference indicated a preference to retain the rule. In one sense I can understand why the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and conference attendees wanted some thresholds for voting or nomination of board members.
Many organisations and governance models have eligibility requirements for voting. This usually turns upon participating in the organisation. The Greens support this Government amendment. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 are aimed at making section 144 changes consistent with the amendments to section 66. The relevant section 66 amendment seeks to clarify that persons are not disqualified from holding the office of a board member of a land council if the person is an employee of or a consultant to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. At present this is inconsistent with the changes proposed to section 144 which states:
A person who is a councillor or an officer of a Local Aboriginal Land Council must not be employed as a member of staff of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council while the person is such a councillor or officer.
While Government amendments Nos 4 and 5 are necessary for consistency in the Act, they raise some questions. Could an employee of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council in some circumstances have a conflict of interest due to his or her role as a councillor or officer of a land council? Obviously that would depend on the function of an individual employee but it could also depend on mechanisms for the declaration of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests at the land council level or with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. My colleague the Hon. Paul Green knows only too well that local government has undergone major changes in the area of declaration to ensure that there is no risk of perceived corruption or influence. I hope that the Minister addresses this area of governance; I know he is very strong in providing guidance, support and training for Aboriginal people in management in organisations and in ensuring open and transparent practices.
That raises the point about not precluding those people with significant skills and capacity from providing their local communities with important support. I fully understand that that is a major part of this amendment and that to restrict membership in these organisations would limit the opportunities for people to take up a role in them, particularly when in the past many people may not have been confident and skilled enough to do so. In time this could change and there could be a restriction or a limitation, but I am sure that will be subject to further consultation and discussion. The Greens do not oppose the amendments but encourage the Minister to look into what mechanisms are in place to support those employees of Aboriginal land councils from being unfairly pressured or placed in positions where they feel their independence may be compromised. It is a matter of protecting the interests of those employees and also protecting the integrity of Aboriginal organisations that are in control of moneys or land. The Greens support the amendments.
Question—That Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 [C2013-083D] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 [C2013-083D] agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments. 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23117
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third reading set down as an order of the day for a future day.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Order of the Day No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher until a later hour of the sitting.
SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (LICENCES) BILL 2013
Second Reading
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.44 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The main purpose of the Security Industry Amendment (Licences) Bill 2013 is to address inconsistencies with Australia's commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS]. The bill will also make other minor amendments to the regulation of the security industry.
Under existing Free Trade Agreements [FTA], Australia is committed to accord to the service suppliers of its FTA partners ]treatment no less favourable than it accords Australian service suppliers.
Currently under section 15 of the Security Industry Act 1997 only Australian citizens and permanent residents can obtain a security industry licence in NSW.
This may restrict the ability of foreign suppliers (individuals or companies) to engage in security-related activities in New South Wales.
This is inconsistent with Australia's GATS commitments and the most watertight way to address this inconsistency is via legislative amendment to residency and citizenship requirements.
Namely, the bill proposes to allow holders of a valid temporary visa that permits employment in Australia (other than a student visa or a working holiday visa) to apply for a New South Wales security industry licence. These applicants will be in addition to Australian citizens and permanent residents who can already apply.
Only a small number of additional people are expected to become eligible for a security licence via this means.
Citizenship and permanent residency requirements were introduced in 2002 as a result of the Bali bombings but the proposed amendments are not expected to adversely impact public safety in New South Wales.
Only holders of valid work visas (excluding student and working holiday visas) will be added to the eligible persons for a New South Wales security licence.
The majority of these persons will have been nominated and sponsored by a business to work in Australia on a temporary basis in an occupation listed in the Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship's Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List [CSOL].
None of the higher risk manpower-related security occupations, such as security guards or crowd controllers, appear on the CSOL.
Under this bill, a small number of persons will become eligible to come to New South Wales independently to work in the security industry. A locksmith, for instance an occupation that is recognised on the CSOL … may become eligible to live and work permanently in New South Wales via a Skilled Independent [sub-class 189] visa.
23118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
Dog handlers or trainers who are licensed under the Act may also become eligible to live and work permanently in New South Wales if nominated by the New South Wales Government via a sub-class 190 visa.
People who apply for either a sub-class 189 or a sub-class 190 visa must meet relevant visa requirements which include character requirements.
These include that each applicant and their dependants, whether they are migrating or not, who are aged 16 years or older must provide police certificates from each country they've lived in for 12 months or more over the past 10 years.
Foreign service suppliers who apply for a security industry licence under the proposed provisions in the Act, will be subject to probity checks similar to those for Australian citizens, permanent residents and applicants for certain visa categories including sub-class 189 or 190 visas.
The proposed procedures for these applicants are that they will:
- provide the NSW Police Force with a police certificate from each country the person has lived in for 12 months or more over the previous 10 years since turning 16;
- pay for the cost of the police certificate/s and pay for any required translation costs;
- obtain verification of the police certificate/s from the relevant countries embassy/consulate in Australia; and
- submit verified police certificate/s in English to the NSW Police Force at the time of making the application for a security industry licence.
These procedures aim to ensure that public safety is maintained in New South Wales and that Australia meets its obligations under GATS.
Failure to address inconsistencies with our national GATS commitments may make Australia vulnerable to dispute action in the World Trade Organisation.
In examining this issue, priority was given to identifying a solution that Imposes reasonable administrative requirements on overseas applicants while ensuring that probity standards in New South Wales can be maintained.
This bill also incorporates miscellaneous amendments to the Act and to the Firearms Act 1996 consequential to the Security Industry Amendment Act 2012 [the Amendment Act].
These amendments primarily aim to streamline licensing processes.
Specifically, subsection 14 (2) (b) of the Act provides that an application form for a security licence must be accompanied by such information and particulars as prescribed by the regulations. This includes evidence of the applicant's competence and experience.
It is proposed to amend the Act to clarify that this information does not need to accompany the application form but must be lodged prior to the granting of the licence. This will expedite the granting of licences as application processing and probity checking can be undertaken in parallel with training.
Subsections 35 (2) and 36 (3) were inserted by the amendment Act and refer to security licences that have been "lost, stolen, destroyed, defaced or mutilated". It is proposed these provisions be expanded beyond deliberate acts to include "or become illegible".
This acknowledges that a licence may simply become illegible over time and exempts a person from producing the damaged licence if an application form has been lodged for a replacement. The amendment will ensure alignment with clauses 22 and 23 of the Security Industry Regulation 2007 [the Regulation].
Section 48 of the Act provides for the making of regulations with respect to a number of issues including methods and practices relating to uniforms and vehicle signage for the security industry.
Clause 40 of the regulation specifies in more detail the types of information to be included in these guidelines and states that a reference to the guidelines refers to those "in force as at the commencement of the Regulation".
It is proposed to amend section 48 of the Act to include a regulation-making power to allow updates to the guidelines as required from time to time. These updates will be subject to usual New South Wales Government procedures to amend regulations.
Without this regulation-making power in the Act, the guidelines will be unable to be amended to reflect contemporary standards.
It is also proposed to make a minor amendment to the Firearms Act 1996 to rectify an unintended consequence of the Amendment Act in that the definition of direct supervision was not carried over to the Firearms Act 1996 in regard to holders of provisional firearms' licences.
The changes proposed in this bill will ensure that New South Wales meets its obligations under GATS while ensuring that public safety is maintained.
I commend the bill to the House.
10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23119
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [3.44 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Security Industry Amendment (Licences) Bill 2013. The bill is fairly simple; it is designed to amend the Security Industry Act 1997 to resolve an inconsistency between the principal Act and Australia's international trade commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] and allow persons who hold certain visas entitling them to work in Australia to apply for a licence under the principal Act. As I understand the history of this process, after the Bali bombings a number of changes were made to the Security Industry Act restricting eligibility to work in the security industry so that only Australian citizens and permanent residents could obtain a security industry licence.
It was subsequently found that that contradicts our international obligations under the GATS agreement and the Government is seeking to amend the Act in order to be consistent with those obligations. The bill modifies a restriction on the granting of security industry licences under the principal Act so as to allow licences to be granted to persons who hold visas that entitle them to work in Australia, other than student visas or working holiday visas. In the second reading speech in the other place the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of some of the provisions in place to ensure appropriate standards are maintained for people engaged in the security industry in Australia and he indicated that even with the arrangements proposed by this legislation those provisions would remain in place. On 19 June 2013 the Parliamentary Secretary said:
Each applicant and their dependants who are aged 16 years or older, whether they are migrating or not, must provide police certificates from each country they have lived in for 12 months or more over the past 10 years. Foreign service suppliers who apply for a security industry licence under the proposed provisions in the Act will be subject to a probity check similar to those for Australian citizens, permanent residents and applicants for certain visa categories, including subclass 189 or subclass 190 visas. The proposed procedures for these applicants are that they will provide the NSW Police Force with a police certificate from each country they have lived in for 12 months or more over the previous 10 years since turning 16; pay for the cost of the police certificate or certificates and any required translation costs; obtain verification of police certificates from the relevant countries, embassies or consulates in Australia; and submit verified police certificates in English to the NSW Police Force at the time of making the application for a security industry licence.
It seems that this legislation will resolve this problem without affecting the important controls that we have to ensure the standards of people who are operating in the security industry in New South Wales. Other provisions in the bill relate to some requirements for the production of a licence when it has become illegible and the bill makes some amendments to the Firearms Act, which, according to the objects of the bill, are to determine the requirements for direct supervision for the purposes of a statutory condition imposed on a provisional pistol licence for business or employment under that Act. The provision stipulates that licence holders are required to be under the direct supervision of certain competent persons for the first six months of the term of the licence. As I understand the second reading speech, that was essentially about correcting an unintended consequence that had occurred in the operation of the Act.
The security industry in New South Wales quite properly has quite heavy regulation. Over a number of years, at times—and for good reasons—the industry has had quite a lot of scrutiny, but on occasions that scrutiny has attracted some unwarranted negative publicity. We see members of the security industry working on our streets and attempting to do often tough jobs at airports and in all sorts of areas. Often the job is tough, particularly when they are dealing with inebriated people. I send my best wishes to the security guard, Fredy Taiba, who was knocked out and had his skull smashed in an incident recently. I understand that he is still in an induced coma. I send my best wishes to his family, and hope that he recovers. He shows that there are dangers in the job, and that it is important for people in the security industry to be able to cope with, unfortunately, inebriated people they might encounter. We sometimes hear negative stories about interactions between security guards and people at venues, but most security guards do a good job for their employers. So the Opposition supports this bill, and sees it as a sensible step.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.50 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak in debate on the Security Industry Amendment (Licences) Bill 2013. The object of the bill is to amend the Security Industry Act 1997 to resolve an inconsistency between the principal Act and Australia's international trade commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] by allowing persons who hold certain visas to work in the security industry and hold a licence under the Security Industry Act 1997. The bill also makes a number of minor and consequential amendments to the principal Act and the Firearms Act 1996. The principle task of this legislation is to expand the number of people who can effectively be locksmiths in New South Wales and have access to some of the most important security devices, master keys and the like, for important facilities throughout New South Wales.
The bill has come about only because it has been forced on the New South Wales Government due to commitments made by Australia under the World Trade Organisation free trade agreement on services or the 23120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
GATS process. The bill will make it possible for people who are not Australian residents and who do not have citizenship or residency rights here to be granted security licences under the Security Industry Act. This includes locksmiths who have access to high-security master keys. Those keys potentially could give locksmiths with a nefarious purpose access to highly sensitive facilities. Schedule 1 item [1] amends the current section 14 (2) to specify that application forms must be supported by relevant information, rather than having it included in applications. Schedule 1 item [2] removes the current restriction that only Australian citizens or permanent residents can be granted a security licence.
Effectively, it expands the group of people entitled to work in the security industry and become locksmiths in Australia, although I note that it is not expanded to include students or those on working holiday visas. I am concerned about the circumstances which have brought the bill about. It has not been brought about because it is considered to be in the best interests of security in New South Wales or because it is considered to be a sensible rationalisation of the security industry. It has been foisted upon New South Wales because of the mantra of free trade, which effectively limits the ability of this Parliament to legislate in the best interests of New South Wales. There is concern about whether appropriate background checks of a person's security and criminal history will be done when such a person has not had his or her background checked to get residency or citizenship in New South Wales.
Someone may have been on our shores for only a short time, has not gone through the checks and balances that are done of his or her security when he or she becomes a citizen and that person relies upon a security clearance that has been granted by another country. Many jurisdictions would be fine. If we were getting a security clearance from New Zealand, Brazil or the United States of America, we would be perfectly comfortable with accepting police security checks from those countries. However, we would be less than comfortable simply signing off on security checks from other jurisdictions around the world.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Name them.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: In response to the Hon. Amanda Fazio's interjection, war-torn countries in sub-Saharan Africa would be one example where we would have concern about security checks that have been done. Our concern is that this legislation is being driven by that free trade agenda, and it is yet another example where the Parliament's ability to legislate in the best interests of our citizens is playing second fiddle to an absolute commitment to a free trade agenda, regardless of the impact. It may well be that there is a general discretion in the granting of licences. That means that if the commissioner or other person reviewing the licence has concerns about the validity of the security checks he or she has a general discretion to refuse a licence. Of course, such a refusal would be subject to review; and one would think that it would be difficult for the Government to defend that decision in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal if a licence was refused simply on the basis that it was uncertain about the quality of the security checks done in a foreign country.
I have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister about the consultation that he and his department have had with the police. I have not heard any security basis upon which the Government is supporting this legislation. When we are talking about the security of locksmiths and master keys and the important role they play in security apparatus in New South Wales it is surprising to find that the only defence for this bill is that free trade mantra. There is no evidence that the Government has sought to properly consult with the police to address those security concerns. While The Greens have those significant concerns about the genesis of the bill, we want to hear the Government respond on the record and assure the New South Wales community that there will be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that locksmiths and the master keys to which they have access will be properly protected with this free trade agenda going through this Parliament.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.57 p.m.]: I support the Security Industry Amendment (Licences) Bill 2013. The security industry in New South Wales makes a significant contribution towards keeping this State safe and plays a vital role in a wide range of businesses and government agencies. There are approximately 4,000 security firms of various sizes operating in the New South Wales security industry across different sectors and occupations. Master licensees range from large multinational companies to sole traders. Employing suitable personnel and effectively regulating the industry is important for public safety. People licensed to guard or install security equipment at critical infrastructure sites and other high-risk premises, and people working as crowd controllers and bodyguards, should be of good character. We have all seen the results of inappropriate activities by people working in the security industry when that does not happen.
New South Wales leads the way nationally with regard to regulation and administration of the security industry. The proposed amendment in the bill to the Security Industry Act 1997 applies only to people entering 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23121
Australia on valid work visas, and excludes student and working holiday visas. These visas primarily apply only to skilled workers who have been nominated and sponsored to work in Australia in one of the occupations listed in the Commonwealth's consolidated sponsored occupation list. None of the higher risk manpower-related security occupations, such as security guards or crowd controllers, are on the Commonwealth's consolidated sponsored occupation list. As such, the proposed bill applies only to certain elements of the technical sector of the security industry, such as security equipment technicians, sellers, locksmiths and dog handlers.
The security licensing and enforcement directorate of the NSW Police Force administers the security industry in New South Wales, and robust probity checks are in place for security licensees who apply for a licence in this State. It is important to ensure that the same standard of probity checks apply to Australian as well as foreign service suppliers, whether the applicants are individuals or companies. The proposed checks for the new potential pool of security licence applicants include providing a police certificate from each country the person has lived in for 12 months or more over the previous 10 years since turning 16, obtaining verification of the police certificates from the relevant countries' embassy or consulate in Australia and submitting verified police certificates in English to the NSW Police Force at the time of making the application for a security industry licence. The changes proposed in this bill will ensure that New South Wales is meeting its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services while ensuring that public safety is maintained. I commend the bill to the House.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.
Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day.
REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I advise members that during the absence from the Chamber today of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I will answer questions relating to his portfolio.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
PORT BOTANY FREIGHT PROJECTS
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given the incoming Federal Government has indicated that it will cut $115 million in Federal funding for the Port Botany upgrade program, will the Minister guarantee that freight projects—including the removal of the rail level crossing on General Holmes Drive and the upgrade of the Port Botany rail line—will still be completed?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not necessarily accept the assertions made in this question. I understand from every conversation I have had with the former Federal Opposition until that glorious event last Saturday, when it was elected the Federal Government, that rather than cut funding it will enhance funding for infrastructure in New South Wales. The rail crossing on General Holmes Drive is of great importance to me and this Government is working on it. This Government has more than $200 million earmarked for improvements of Port Botany, which also affects the airport and part of its early WestConnex enabling works. I am absolutely determined to push ahead with the rail crossing project on General Holmes Drive.
BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on bushfires in New South Wales?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What I say now is the situation as at 3.30 p.m. today, but it is rapidly changing so people should watch the television, listen to the radio or log onto the websites of the Roads and Maritime Services and the Rural Fire Service. As at 3.30 p.m., 63 bushfires and grassfires are burning across New South Wales, 40 of which are uncontained. I am advised that currently 746 firefighters and 273 appliances are responding from NSW Rural Fire Service, Fire and Rescue NSW and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Strong, gusty north-westerly winds, which are not expected to abate until later this evening, continue to affect fire grounds. A southerly change is expected to come through the Greater Sydney Basin between 5.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. 23122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
In Sydney more than 40 fire crews are responding to bushfires and grassfires across Sydney. All training and drills have been suspended and firefighters have been recalled to duty. There are currently no fire stations offline. An additional 12 fire trucks have been staffed by firefighters from specialist areas and deployed to assist at various locations. My colleague the Hon. Michael Gallacher has gone to the headquarters of the Rural Fire Service to monitor the situation closely and may well visit some of the areas. I am advised that the following roads are now closed due to bushfires in the Windsor area: the Northern Road at Cranebrook Road and Londonderry Road in Castlereagh; Devlin Road between Castlereagh Road and Nutt Road in Castlereagh; Garfield Road at Richmond Road in Marsden Park; Blacktown Road between George Street and Bourke Street in Bligh Park; and Hawkesbury Road between High School Drive and Rivatts Drive in Hawkesbury Heights. A bushfire is causing low visibility on the M1, or F3, near Hue Hue Road in Wyee. Fire crews are parked in the breakdown lane.
We are monitoring the M1 very closely because of the smoke and a decision will be made about closing it. Currently the visibility is low but still okay, but the circumstances are moveable. People who want to use the M1 should check before they do so. The traffic management centre has deployed the following resources to assist: four traffic commanders; two maintenance crews to assist with implementing closures and diversions; three area transport coordinators to assist with road closures and impacts to transport; and one member of Transport for NSW, who is on site at the control room of the Rural Fire Service, to assist in providing information. All media have been advised of the closures and rolling information continues to be disseminated from the traffic management centre. [Time expired.]
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer on the fires in New South Wales?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: In relation to the transport impact, rail passengers on the western line are advised that buses are replacing trains between Richmond and Clarendon due to a power surge that is affecting signals in the area. Passengers should allow additional travel time, check indicator boards and listen to station announcements. Route 757 buses are diverting from Richmond Road in Marsden Park due to a grassfire and are using Carnarvon Road instead. In addition, route 673 buses are diverting from Richmond Road. Route 674 buses are diverting from the Northern Road in Castlereagh due to a grassfire. Four bus stops are being missed. In addition, route 677 buses are diverting from Londonderry Road, which is closed due to this grassfire. Route 675 buses are diverting from Blacktown Road in Clarendon via local roads due to a grassfire. If I have further updates during question time, I will advise the House.
NEWCASTLE TOURLE STREET BRIDGE
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given the incoming Federal Abbott Government has indicated that it will cost $52 million in Federal funding for the duplication of the Tourle Street Bridge in Newcastle, will the Minister guarantee that that project will still be completed?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Once again I am relying on information from the Opposition.
The Hon. Steve Whan: You had better go on their website. That's where it says it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Just listen for a moment, cobber.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: You get your chance now.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will answer it if members stop their inanities. They wonder why we need extra time when all they do is interrupt, whinge, and make pointless interjections.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The information on Tourle Street Bridge was that the Hon. Anthony Albanese announced it and we had to take it for granted that it was in the budget. We only had his word that it was in the budget. I happened to be in Newcastle the day that the announcement was made to fix up the mess and I await clarification from the incoming Federal Government as to whether that funding is available. If the funding is there we will match it. If the funding is not there, it means that Anthony Albanese made an announcement without having the funding. 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23123
ASSISTED BOARDING HOUSE COMPLIANCE MONITORING
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. During the recent budget estimates the Minister reported that Ageing, Disability and Home Care has three compliance-monitoring assisted boarding houses in New South Wales. The director general reported that outside the three-person boarding house compliance team, regional officers are receiving training in the new regulatory environment. Will the Minister advise how many other Ageing, Disability and Home Care officers will receive training to support the three assisted boarding house compliance officers? In which regions will training be prioritised and will the Minister provide details about the historical number of compliance officers working in Ageing, Disability and Home Care over the last six years?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The member will be aware that as of Monday we have taken the six separate regions and turned them into 15 separate locations to ensure localisation. Because of the person-centred approach being implemented by the Government it is clearly appropriate to have those Ageing, Disability and Home Care officers closer to their clients with the 15 different districts. I am pleased to confirm that the boarding house industry reforms under the Boarding Houses Act and regulation introduced by the New South Wales Government came into effect on 1 July, as previously indicated. As to the specific aspects of the question, I will take them on notice and come back to the member.
ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's commitment to partnering with the new Federal Coalition Government to deliver the roads of the twenty-first century?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for such a timely and relevant question. I am disappointed that I have had to wait for one of my own to ask this question. I would have thought that the Labor Party would have learnt its lesson. I say congratulations to the Federal Coalition on a fantastic win last weekend, returning Australia to sound leadership. It gives me confidence that work to progress vital infrastructure is finally going to be fast-tracked by adults. It is refreshing to have a grown-up Government in Canberra, unlike the juveniles sitting in this House. Last week I had the pleasure of addressing the Committee for Economic Development of Australia [CEDA], where I was able to detail some of the key achievements of the Government. I suspect it is a long time since the Committee for Economic Development of Australia had a reformed agrarian socialist addressing it.
[Interruption]
Well, semi-reformed; there is still a fair bit of country boy hanging in there. I also got to outline the great work on key infrastructure that we will now be progressing, thanks to the new Federal Government's funding commitments. The O'Farrell Government is determined to deliver better transport and freight outcomes for the people and businesses of New South Wales. I will be delivering Tony Abbott and Barry O'Farrell's roads for the twenty-first century to service the people of New South Wales, who deserve a Government that cares about congestion—a Government that gets on with the job and delivers results. That is why under this Government infrastructure expenditure in New South Wales will total $60 billion over the next four financial years.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Did you say $60 million?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Billion—get your Cuisenaire rods out and put away your Lego. This represents historic levels of infrastructure funding. Since coming to office in March 2011 we have delivered more than $15 billion to upgrade and build roads across the State. This includes a $1.8 billion commitment to start construction in 2015 on what will be Australia's largest urban road project, WestConnex. WestConnex will connect Western Sydney with the central business district and the international gateways of the airport and Port Botany. It is designed to ease congestion, connect communities and create jobs. Tony Abbott the Good has come on board with $1.5 billion committed with no terms and conditions attached to the commitment, unlike Rudd's mob. This is how adults run the show. A total of $250,000 has already been committed to the WestConnex project this financial year from the Liberals and The Nationals. I am delighted to say that Tony Abbott and Warren Truss—
The Hon. Steve Whan: Who? 23124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Listen to this one; come out of denial. They have also stated they will restore the 80:20 funding split between the Federal and New South Wales governments for the Pacific Highway upgrade. They are in denial. [Time expired.]
M4 MOTORWAY TOLL
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Is it a fact that the incoming Federal Coalition Government will spend $1.5 billion on the WestConnex motorway by the middle of 2016 and the State Government has allocated $1.8 billion for the project in the next four years, with more money to be raised by putting a toll on a widened M4 motorway? When will the M4 motorway toll be reintroduced and what will it cost motorists?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. In answer to the second part of the question, the answer is emphatically yes, the New South Wales Government has committed $1.8 billion in the next four years. In answer to the first part of his question, the answer is yes, the Federal Coalition Government has committed $1.5 billion. For the first time we have the planets aligned. There is serendipity on this issue; it is about to happen. As to the third part of the question, we have always said there will be a toll if the M4 is substantially improved so, yes, there will be a toll on the M4. The details of that toll and our construction timetable are coming very soon—not too many sleeps to go. It is like Christmas. Even Opposition members will love this one when it comes. They will need a big stocking to cart it away.
MOUNT OUSLEY ROAD UPGRADE
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given the incoming Abbott Government has indicated that it will cut $42 million Federal funding for upgrades to Mount Ousley Road between Bulli Tops and the Picton Road interchange, will the Minister give a guarantee that this project will still be completed?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Once again we have an assertion from the Opposition of cuts—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Why don't you rule it out then?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The member makes assertions on just about everything—though every now and again even the Hon. Walt Secord has one that is correct. So I am pretty careful about these things. When you get a bit of grey hair and you have been around, you know that most of these assertions are wrong. Nearly all of those from the Hon. Amanda Fazio are wrong. Though most of the assertions are wrong, occasionally one is right. So, rather than take the implication in the question by rote, I will go away and check. A Federal Minister has not been sworn in to deal with the area; but I will check with the new Government—once it is in power, once it is in harness, once they it is pulling the levers, and once it has Australia moving again.
LIVING LIFE MY WAY DISABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister provide an update on the Living Life My Way framework?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The New South Wales Government continues to demonstrate its commitment to increasing choice and control for people with disability through individualised funding arrangements. On 3 July 2013 the New South Wales Government released the Living Life My Way framework, which will guide the expansion of opportunities for people with disability, their families and carers to exercise choice and control over their supports as New South Wales moves to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This commitment is reflected in the fact that the New South Wales Government successfully negotiated with the Commonwealth Government to become the first State to agree to fully implement the National Disability Insurance Scheme, contributing $3.1 billion a year from 2018-19, along with the Commonwealth Government's annual investment of $3.1 billion.
As the National Disability Insurance Scheme launch in the Hunter progresses, the Government will continue to implement its Stronger Together 2 reforms to ensure people with disability and service providers are positioned to move seamlessly to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Following the National Disability Insurance Scheme launch in the three Hunter local government areas, all other eligible New South Wales residents will transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme after 2016, with the National Disability 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23125
Insurance Scheme fully operational in 2018. For this reason, New South Wales will continue advancing access to individualised funding for disability service clients where we can and, in many cases, earlier than our original planned date of July 2014.
We are recasting the growth under Stronger Together 2 to direct even more funding to ensure that people who want the option of a more flexible funding arrangement can have that option. We do this in a number of ways. As an example, we are redirecting previously planned investment in the development of systems under Stronger Together 2 towards increasing the number of individualised packages available for people with a disability. Another way is providing new clients with the option of receiving support through an individual funding arrangement.
We are doing this responsibly and in a way that does not require the dismantling of services that would disadvantage other clients, or require the development of systems occurring at the national level resulting in a duplication of investment. The development of an operational model is under way to support the expansion of individualised funding in New South Wales. People with disability currently receiving disability services who are interested in moving into an individualised funding arrangement are able to register their interest by contacting Ageing, Disability and Home Care by phone or email. An online form will be available on the Ageing, Disability and Home Care website by the end of this month.
The Living Life My Way framework recognises the importance of ensuring that people with a disability, families and carers are able to transition seamlessly to individual funding arrangements and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Living Life My Way Ambassadors and Champions program is an initiative where people with disability, families and carers from across New South Wales help to raise community awareness about the New South Wales disability reforms. I am pleased to advise the House that $7.56 million in total has been invested in nine capacity-building initiatives, targeted at building the skills of people with disability to participate in individualised funding and increasing their awareness of current reforms, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme. [Time expired.]
HUNTER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Finance and Services—and it's a damn fine question! What consideration has the O'Farrell Government given to building a desalination plant in the Hunter Valley in an effort to drought-proof that region? How much would such a plan cost compared to the cost of the abandoned Tillegra Dam project?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I take the honourable member at his word that "it's a damn fine question", though it has got the odd wriggle in it. It has excited the Opposition spokesman so that is concerning: there have got to be some traps in trying to tiptoe through this one. Given it is a day of danger and I see red lights—
The Hon. Robert Brown: No, no, there's no danger here.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, there would be no danger in it. But, as skilled and good as I am, it is a question I will take on notice. I will refer it to my colleague.
AGED CARE FACILITIES REGULATION
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. In light of comments from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association describing the Federal Coalition's policy to relax aged care regulation as "a slap in the face for older Australians", and its stated concerns that the scheme demonstrates a poor understanding of the problems of abuse, neglect and premature death in Australian nursing homes, what action will the Minister take to ensure that standards and protections for older people living in aged care facilities in New South Wales are maintained?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Members opposite are well aware of the NSW Ageing Strategy. Let us have a look at the fabulous work that was undertaken by my predecessor, the current Minister for Finance, the Hon. Andrew Constance. Let us look at the great work that was being done in relation to the strategy.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance. The Minister was asked for his response to the changes being proposed by the Federal Government. The Minister has not addressed the question in his answer. I ask that the Minister be directed to make his remarks relevant. 23126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister had been speaking for only 30 seconds when the honourable member took the point of order. It is far too early to form such a judgement. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I do not intend to read out every aspect of the strategy, but I would strongly recommend that those opposite read it. The member and his colleagues are well aware that aged care is a Federal matter. What I find interesting is that the question comes three days after the Federal election, in which the Rudd Labor Government was completely wiped out and the Liberals and Nationals in New South Wales recorded some great results. I congratulate the Liberals and Nationals on those results.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The question was specific and the Minister should be directed to answer it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We could be here for a very long time if we canvass all 48 electorates. I remind the Minister of the need to be generally relevant in his answer to the question.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I am confident that the new Abbott Coalition Government will deliver not only for the elderly of New South Wales but for all Australians. The former Federal Labor Government failed miserably in that regard and that is why it lost office. Surely after the 2011 election members opposite realise that playing games and making false promises does not work because they also were thrown out of office. Their Federal colleagues did the same thing and members opposite are trying it again in this place. I do not accept that. I look forward to working with the Federal Minister for ageing and the Federal Minister for disability services.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Hon. Marie Ficarra and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis want to have a private conversation they should do so outside the Chamber.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Can I watch?
The PRESIDENT: Order! No, the Hon. John Ajaka cannot watch. He will conclude his answer or sit down.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: One thing I am certain about is that those Ministers will be members of the Liberal Party or The Nationals. [Time expired.]
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in respect of the specific steps he will take to ensure that aged care regulations are not weakened in any way by the new Federal Government?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I will indicate some of the specific steps I have taken already. First, on Saturday I was at a polling booth telling everyone to vote for the Coalition because that was the best thing they could do for New South Wales.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister was asked a serious question of great concern to aged people in nursing homes and their families, and he should answer it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Within a very wide ambit the Minister was being generally relevant to the question asked. The Hon. Amanda Fazio knows full well that I cannot direct a Minister on how to answer a question.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: While at the polling booth I received a great deal of information—
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The Minister is not even close to answering the question. Mr President, please direct him to focus on the answer to the question asked of him.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I think the Minister is elucidating the answer he has given previously.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I draw members' attention to the wonderful result in the Illawarra, which I am proud to have as a portfolio responsibility. 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23127
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister was asked a question as Minister for Ageing and his answer is not relevant. If he keeps talking about which polling booth he was at he might indicate whether he was handing out how-to-vote cards for Michael Nagi.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister's time has expired.
FEDERAL ELECTION 2013
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I address my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the implications of the results of the Federal election on his portfolios and The Greens?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for her wide-ranging question. The Coalition achieved outstandingly good results at last weekend's Federal election with a gain of at least seven seats in New South Wales, of which the grand old Nationals won three. That is the best we have achieved since 1996. We improved our vote by 10 per cent across the State. What did The Greens achieve? Everywhere that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham campaigned in New South Wales The Nationals vote went through the roof and The Greens vote went through the floor. Wherever he went in regional New South Wales The Greens' vote went down, down, down. The Greens conducted a scare campaign about mining and coal seam gas exploration, but The Nationals' vote increased across the State. In an election that saw the worst Labor vote in 100 years and Country Labor members snivelling and hiding behind trees—
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: While the Minister was talking about The Greens it was fine, but I point out that he was asked about how the election affected his portfolios. After two minutes he is still to mention his portfolio responsibilities. Mr President, I ask you to draw the Minister back to the leave of the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is reminded of the need to be generally relevant to the question.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My portfolios impact on all of regional New South Wales, which now has a new government in Canberra, and the difference will be incredible. The new Federal Government will be working with a great government in New South Wales. What happened to The Greens vote? It declined by 2.6 per cent.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Whoopee!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Greens are in denial. It is like the Labor Party. The former Prime Minister spent 23 minutes channelling his inner Rob Oakeshott and the true believers are now non-believers. They do not believe they lost the election; they are in blissful denial that everything they have done has come to nought. The New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals have done damn well. We won seats and the Independents are dead in New South Wales. Lyne has reverted to its true representation and so has New England. We saw a huge increase— [Time expired.]
SUGARLOAF STATE CONSERVATION AREA MINE SUBSIDENCE
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I address my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. As the Minister is aware, Glencore Xstrata's longwall mining near Sugarloaf State Conservation Area has caused substantial damage to this important site, with attempts by Glencore Xstrata to remediate the damage causing 180 tonnes of grouting material to spill into a creek. In light of the significant subsidence impacts longwall mining has on water catchments and sensitive environmental areas, will the Government commit to undertaking an independent inquiry into mining subsidence in the Sugarloaf State Conservation Area? Will it also commit to rejecting any further longwall mining applications in sensitive environmental areas, including drinking water catchments? . [Interruption]
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I acknowledge that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham referred to his Greens colleagues in the Senate as members of the zoo. It is a question of great detail that has a large number of alarmist tendencies. Granting that, I will take the question on notice and refer the question to my colleague the 23128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
Minister for Resources and Energy for a detailed answer. When everyone else was campaigning—when the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham was losing votes for The Greens across regional New South Wales—where was Mr David Shoebridge? He was channelling his inner "rake". He was trying to star in an ABC legal series. He closed his eyes and imagined that he was the "rake" of the Parliament. I am reminded of Rumpole of the Bailey. That would be more appropriate for Mr David Shoebridge. He is more Guthrie Featherstone, QC—
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: The question related to a serious issue: It related to a massive amount of mining damage in the Sugarloaf State Conservation Area. The Minister is not being generally relevant in his answer.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister might be going a little bit beyond the scope of what is generally relevant. Has the Minister any further relevant information to add to his answer?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Regarding the relevant bits, I certainly acknowledge that it was a detailed question that warranted a detailed answer. As I indicated earlier, I will send the question to my colleague. Then I asked where the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham's colleague was—the man who wants to be the "Rake" of the Parliament. He is the Hon. Guthrie Featherstone, QC, MP, and Marigold— [Time expired.]
FIRE STATION CLOSURES
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister confirm that fire stations at Camden, Riverwood, Miranda, Mona Vale and Ryde were closed today? Will the Minister confirm that fire stations at Macquarie Fields, Ashfield, Botany and Newtown were left vacant because crews were sent to cover the areas serviced by those other fire stations?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I certainly hope the Leader of the Opposition is not playing politics on a day like today. I will take the question at face value. When my colleague returns from the fires I will obtain an answer. I certainly hope that this is not some petty political question that came from his peers downstairs. I said I would inform members if there was an update on the fires. One northbound lane on the M1 Pacific Motorway—the F3—is closed at Wyee on the State's Central Coast due to the smoke from the bushfire. One northbound lane is closed at Wyee Creek to help fire crews contain the blaze. One northbound lane and all southbound lanes remain open at this stage. Motorists are advised to reduce speed and exercise caution as they travel through the area because smoke is affecting visibility.
MY CHOICE MATTERS DISABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister provide an update on the Consumer Development Fund innovation and its relationship to the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. My Choice Matters—the NSW Consumer Development Fund—was launched by the Government in August 2012. During 2011 and 2012 Ageing, Disability and Home Care consulted with more than 4,000 people with disability, their families, carers and other stakeholders, about the move to a person-centred disability system. Through these Living Life My Way consultations people told us that implementing individualised funding arrangements had to be supported by investment in capacity building for people with disability, their families and carers. Many people with disability told us that they wanted opportunities to learn and practise decision-making skills, and to have ongoing assistance to try new ways of managing their supports. In the words of one participant, "Why don't they teach us to do it?"
We listened, and in response we established My Choice Matters. For the first time the New South Wales Government has made a significant direct investment to develop the skills and confidence of people with disability, their families and carers. My Choice Matters is being administered by the NSW Council for Intellectual Disability on behalf of the Government. The implementation approach was based on feedback from the Living Life My Way consultations as well as further consultation with people with disability, advocates and organisations representing people with a disability. My Choice Matters activities are being implemented in two phases. The first phase involves a series of 30 introductory workshops being run across New South Wales and establishing an online presence including a dedicated website—www.mychoicematters.org.au—a social media presence and profiles of people with disability who have been managing their own support. 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23129
Average attendance at the 11 workshops held so far is more than 35. Presenters at these workshops are people with disability who have been managing their own supports, taking on more control and exercising more choice in their lives. My Choice Matters asked workshop participants for their feedback on how confident they felt making choices, speaking up and being in control. Overall, participants reported significant increases in their confidence level at the end of the workshop. I will share with members some of the comments reported by participants when they were asked what they had gained from the workshop. One participant said, "Today made me think about the future, and I do have choices." Another participant said, "Affirmation that I am on the right track. A few ideas reinforced that it is a hard road but the right road." Another person said, "Keep persevering and be creative. Plan, plan, plan." Finally, another person said, "Now is the best time to pursue our dreams."
These are matters that we take for granted. Those with a disability have a right to live their lives based on the comments in that feedback. Bookings are now open for a further 14 workshops. In the second phase people with a disability and their families and carers will have the opportunity to run their own projects to achieve their own individual development goals. A leadership initiative for people with disability and their families is also being developed. The focus for My Choice Matters is a whole-of-New-South-Wales approach and includes people with disability, including Aboriginal people, cultural and linguistically diverse groups, and rural communities.
NEWCASTLE PORT CORPORATION
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. The Newcastle Port Corporation is currently its own consent authority for many environmental matters, including a recent proposal to dump dredged material in the Swing Basin. In light of the proposed privatisation and long-term lease of the Newcastle Port, will the private body maintain this consent authority?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for her question. My understanding— I will clarify the detail of it—is that that authority will remain with the Newcastle Port Corporation. The same has applied at Port Kembla and at Port Botany. The answer requires a degree of detail that I do not normally carry in my head. It is obviously part of the scoping study at the moment. I will come back to the honourable member with a detailed answer to quite a proper question.
AGED CARE WORKER WAGE RATES
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Given the incoming Abbott Government has said it will abolish the $1.2 billion Aged Care Workforce Compact, which would have delivered higher wages to the nation's 350,000 aged care workers, what will the Minister do to ensure that aged care workers are not forced to leave the sector?
The Hon. Mick Veitch: Point of order: There was so much noise coming from Government members that I was unable to hear what the Government Whip said.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Indeed, there was a lot of noise coming from both sides of the House. I ask all members to restrain themselves from interjecting while a question is being asked.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I indicate very clearly that I am confident that any aspect relating to Ageing and Disability Services will be well and truly looked after under the new Abbott Government. The people of Australia have demonstrated that they too are confident, because the new Government has won many seats from the former Rudd Labor Government. Those opposite play these dreadful political games with Ageing and Disability Services when, for the last 2½ years in opposition, they have been silent and they have failed to approach their Federal colleagues about any one of these issues.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister was asked a very specific question about the Abbott Government withdrawing support for increased wages for aged care workers. He is completely off the track with his answer. I ask you to bring him back to the point of the question, which asked what he will do to fill the hole in the funding for aged care workers' salaries that will be left by this Abbott Government action.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Government members will come to order. The Minister is being generally relevant to the question asked. 23130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: In the short time I have left I will inform members of a number of things. I will inform members of the difference it will see because of my relationship with the new Government Ministers who will be announced on Monday. I have been a Minister for approximately four weeks. Under the former Federal Labor Government I did not receive one communication from either the Federal Minister responsible for ageing or from the Federal Minister responsible for disability services. What is the first communication we get from the Federal ministers— [Time expired.]
WESTERN SYDNEY ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on Federal Government funding for Western Sydney road projects?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for asking such an important question. I am pleased to report that I have only good news with which to update members on the Narellan Road and Jane Street upgrades. Both upgrades in Sydney's western heartland are moving ahead, with the new Federal Government—
The Hon. Steve Whan: The Moree bypass—one project west of the Great Divide.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, you're dead wrong.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the second time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Both upgrades in Sydney's western heartland are moving ahead, with the new Federal Government committing more than $85 million in funding to both projects. With the landslide Liberals and Nationals win on the weekend I can now sleep easy knowing that these important upgrades will progress, which is more than I can say about the promises made by the former Federal Government. In fact, there were no promises made by Kevin Rudd; the former Federal Government did not care about Western Sydney.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Steve Whan to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The New South Wales and Federal Liberal-Nationals governments are here to deliver—not just to talk about important projects that will improve infrastructure in Western Sydney. We will deliver what we promise. We will do something about the congestion on key Western Sydney roads. I hear noises coming from Opposition members; they do not give a damn about Western Sydney.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Steve Whan to order for the second time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Roads like Narellan Road and Jane Street are priorities for this Government. The Federal Government has committed a monster $53 million for the Narellan Road upgrade and a whopping $35 million for Jane Street. The New South Wales Government has agreed to match the Federal Government's Jane Street funding and has allocated $15.4 million between 2011 and 2015 to commence the upgrade of Narellan Road to three lanes in each direction. I welcome this Federal funding commitment to the Jane Street extension and the Narellan Road upgrade; it is further evidence that the Federal Government understands how important it is to deliver key infrastructure projects in Western Sydney. A number of key milestones have been achieved since we announced the Narellan Road project in May 2012, including Roads and Maritime Services displaying a concept design and a review of environmental factors for the remainder of the Narellan Road upgrade.
The member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, the recently appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport, and I allocated $150,000 in this year's budget to undertake pre-planning for the proposed extension of Penrith's Jane Street. He is an outstanding Parliamentary Secretary; but only time will tell how good he will be. It will be a challenge—his predecessor was the best Parliamentary Secretary I ever had. It is not just in Western Sydney where the new Federal Government is delivering funding and getting on with the job of upgrading roads. WestConnex is a major project, which will be delivered by the State and Federal Liberal-Nationals governments. We have committed $1.8 million to get WestConnex started, and Tony Abbott has committed $1.5 million to the project with no strings attached. [Time expired.] 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23131
SHOALHAVEN BRIDGE UPGRADE
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given recent comments in the South Coast media by the new Federal member for Gilmore that the old Shoalhaven Bridge could collapse in the next six to eight years under the weight of heavy trucks, is that the finding of the Roads and Maritime Services? Will the Minister write to the new Federal Liberal-Nationals Government as soon as possible to secure the $10 million on offer from the new Federal Government to quicken the replacement and resolve the possible collapse of this very old bridge?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am aware, as I am sure the Hon. Paul Green is aware as a prominent member and a former mayor of the Shoalhaven—
The Hon. Walt Secord: He never talks about the Shoalhaven. He never mentions it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He does.
The Hon. Walt Secord: That was irony.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The irony was lost in the accent.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: The Minister repeatedly refers to the accents of members on this side of the Chamber who were born overseas. Other members of the Chamber have made similar complaints about the Minister referring to their accents.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: I challenge the Hon. Walt Secord to name one occasion on which I have done that. I believe he is making this up to cover the fact that he said something inappropriate about the Hon. Paul Green.
The Hon. Steve Whan: To the point of order: In the course of responding to the point of order, the Minister implied that the Hon. Walt Secord made an inappropriate comment about another member. That is an aspersion on the Hon. Walt Secord which is incorrect. I ask the President to call the Minister to order and ask him to withdraw his implication against the Hon. Walt Secord.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Further to the point of order: The Hon. Walt Secord made the inappropriate comment that there was irony. No-one else in the Chamber detected irony and that is why I indicated that irony must have been lost in the accent.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I find it hard to rule that the use of the word "accent" is a reflection on another member. It certainly is not an offensive word. There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: In answer to the Hon. Paul Green, who, contrary to comments in this House, cares and raises real issues about the Shoalhaven—
The Hon. Peter Primrose: He doesn't have a glass jaw.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: How do you spell "glass jaw"?
The Hon. Peter Primrose: He doesn't have a glass jaw.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, the Hon. Paul Green does not have a glass jaw.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that he should not respond to interjections. The Minister will answer the question he was asked. Order! I call the Hon. Helen Westwood to order for the first time. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Paul Green would be aware that the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull announced $15 million for better roads in Gilmore, including $10 million for planning for the third river crossing over the Shoalhaven, $2 million for improving the Nowra to Moss Vale Road, and $2 million for sealing the Turpentine Road. He would also be aware that I have $1 million for the Shoalhaven River bridge— [Time expired.] 23132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I ask a supplementary question. Given all the extra activity, will the Minister elucidate his answer?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As usual, we have lost a lot of time due to pointless interjections from members opposite. As to the original part of the Hon. Paul Green's question about the bridge, I take his point to heart and will follow that up.
The time for questions has expired. If members have any further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.
BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier in question time the Hon. Niall Blair asked me about bushfires. I can provide an official update on the bushfires. Richmond Road is now closed between the M7 at Dean Park and The Northern Road at Bligh Park near Richmond due to a bushfire. Motorists are advised to avoid all non-essential travel in the area. The following roads also remain closed: Blacktown Road between The Northern Road and Bourke Street in Bligh Park, The Northern Road between Richmond Road and Cranebrook Road in Castlereagh, Cranebrook Road between The Northern Road and Vincent Road in Cranebrook, Londonderry Road at The Northern Road, Devlin Road between Castlereagh Road and Nutt Road in Londonderry, and Garfield Road between Richmond Road and Carnarvon Road in Marsden Park.
A bushfire at Winmalee has also closed Hawkesbury Road between High School Drive and Rivatts Drive. Singles Ridge Road is also closed at Hawkesbury Road. As at 4.45 p.m. all northbound lanes on the M1 or F3 have been closed due to a spot fire—it is not smoke on this occasion—on the central median. It is not known how long it will be closed. A 4.30 p.m. status update for Emergency Services shows that four fires are at emergency warning status; five fires are at watch and act status; at least 1,000 firefighters and 350 appliances have been deployed; and 14 aircraft have been asked for or are on standby. Sadly, five firefighters have been treated for smoke inhalation and one firefighter has been taken to hospital with superficial burn injuries. On behalf of all members of the House, we wish them well in this tough task this afternoon and into the evening.
Questions without notice concluded.
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. David Clarke tabled the following reports:
(1) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002—
(a) Report of New South Wales Crime Commission under section 242A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 for year ended 30 June 2013.
(b) Report of Ombudsman entitled, "Report under Section 242 (3) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002: Covert Search Warrants, for the period ending 28 May 2013", dated August 2013.
(c) Report of Ombudsman entitled, "Review of Division 4, Part 3 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002: Face Coverings and Identification", dated August 2013.
(2) Law Reform Commission Act 1967—Report of the Law Reform Commission for year ended 30 June 2013.
(3) Surveillance Devices Act 2007—Report of New South Wales Crime Commission under subsection 45(3) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 for year ended 30 June 2013.
(4) Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002—Report of New South Wales Crime Commission under section 27ZB of Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 for year ended 30 June 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. David Clarke.
Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS
Report: Review of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981
Debate resumed from 27 August 2013.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.10 p.m.]: I support the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled, "Review of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and the Election 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23133
Funding Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981", which was handed down in May 2013. The committee has had a number of confusing changes in its chair—this inquiry was chaired by Jai Rowell and there have been two subsequent changes. Under the terms of reference the committee was required to undertake a review of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act and the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act and to consider whether the Acts should be amended or rewritten to promote free, open and honest elections in New South Wales.
The committee looked into a number of issues, including whether the terms and structure of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act remain appropriate; the role and functions of the New South Wales Electoral Commission; and whether existing provisions regarding the entitlement to enrol and vote in New South Wales elections are appropriate. This is a detailed report, which contains a lot of recommendations and I support most of those recommendations. The committee recommended that legislation be introduced for a new electoral Act that provides for both the conduct of State elections and the regulation of campaign finance and expenditure. That is a far better way to deal with the issue than having two pieces of legislation, in particular, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act, which is old legislation that has been amended a number of times.
The committee also requested that the new Act seek clarity of structure; have plain English drafting; include a general objects provision to assist with judicial interpretation of the Act; and ensure an appropriate balance between retaining the substance of electoral law in the primary legislation, whilst allowing for certain detailed administrative provisions to be dealt with by way of regulations. The committee recommended also that in drafting legislation for a new electoral Act, the New South Wales Government provide that the conduct of State elections and the regulation of campaign finance and expenditure should be administered by a single statutory corporation—currently the Electoral Commission and the Election Funding Authority are separate bodies—whose structure supports investigative and enforcement functions, whilst delegating to the Electoral Commission the distinctly separate responsibility for the administration of elections.
The committee also recommended that the provisions of section 25 (a) of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act be abolished and that when the new Act is drafted the current provisions of section 120C (6) be amended to provide that a lack of mental capacity certified by a medical practitioner is a sufficient reason for the failure of an elector to vote at an election. Currently people with a mental illness are treated the same as other electors and it can be far more devastating for them to be issued with fine notices. The committee further recommended that when the new Act is drafted a comprehensive review be undertaken of the penalties that currently apply for breaches because they are very low. The objects of the review should be to ensure that penalties under the new Act provide sufficient deterrence to non-compliance and are consistent with those currently applicable under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981—more recent legislation with a stronger penalty regime.
A lot of the recommendations are very technical in terms of how the committee would like the new Act legislated. For instance, provisions related to third-party campaigners be in a specific part of the Act—they are currently all over the place; the issue of whether income and expenditure is consistently exclusive of GST be dealt with—it is currently unclear and causes difficulty for those preparing returns as to expenditure and fundraising activities; and we have more streamlined administrative processes for administrating campaign finance and expenditure. It was also recommended that division 4A of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981, which relates to prohibited donors, should be repealed. There has been a lot of community debate about what should and should not constitute "prohibited donors". I think there would be considerable community concern if all the good work that has been done as to prohibited donors were to be repealed. This would send the wrong message because a lot of concern has been raised about sections of industry and commerce trying to sway the electoral process in their favour. Recommendation no. 20 should be looked at carefully.
It was also recommended that the Government consider a review of the types of electoral expenditure that qualify for public funding and that we harmonise the levels of public funding which may be claimed under the separate candidate and party categories. Importantly, any changes to important legislation such as this— legislation that impacts on the democracy that New South Wales enjoys—should be put forward as an exposure draft. This will enable consultation and comment from all political parties in this State as well as organisations concerned in the political process, whether environmental groups or those that want to promote or oppose certain policies and are often involved in third party campaigning. If there is no exposure draft or period of consultation then any benefits to result from repealing the two existing pieces of legislation and amalgamating 23134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
them into one modern, streamlined, easy-to-read piece of legislation will be doubted by many in the community. I thank the secretariat for the support given to the committee during this inquiry. As I said earlier, this detailed report contains a lot of recommendations and I support most of them.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.19 p.m.]: I speak to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. As the Hon. Amanda Fazio has indicated, this was essentially a bipartisanship report with a list of recommendations that mainly dealt with machinery provisions in relation to the drafting of a new Act. It can be generally said that we agreed that the existing two Acts—Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981—are in need of a good overhaul. I do not know what it is like in the Labor Party but everyone in the Liberal Party is an expert on electoral matters. Everyone has a view of what needs to be done, what needs to be changed, how the area needs to be reformed and the urgency of why this should be done.
The committee examined the two Acts which have grown like topsy over a period of years. The original Act, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act, was first enacted in 1912. Since that time every government in power has fiddled with it in some way. There has always been some sort of tinkering around the edges to fix some real or perceived failing of the existing legislation and it has grown like topsy to the point where the final Act is like a patchwork field. At least a patchwork field is productive. This is more like a moth-eaten quilt, which is patched every now and again to try to fix real or perceived issues with the Act. The committee members believe that it is time for a full review and establishment of a new Act that makes sense and can be read logically.
While it is easy to put a whole series of regulations and rules into grand eloquent legalese that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be able to understand, there are large numbers of people who just want to run for Parliament and do not want to get a law degree to do so. We need a new Act that is clear and understandable to ordinary people and allows for the containment of various sections within various areas. The rules relating to funding and donations are all over the place. Indeed, there are criminal sanctions against people who do not understand the documentation required to be produced and who do not produce the right documentation. Yet despite the very good guide books produced by the New South Wales Electoral Commission for candidates in particular, the simple fact remains that the legislation is complex and unwieldy when it does not need to be.
I turn now to two specific recommendations of the committee. The first is recommendation No. 7, which calls for a comprehensive review of the penalties that currently apply for breaches of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act and that the penalties under the new Act provide sufficient deterrence to non-compliance and are consistent with those currently applicable under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act. I have spoken on this issue previously. The penalties that apply to a whole range of breaches of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act are woefully small. While it is true that we do not want to penalise people for exercising democracy, the failure to appropriately punish those who do not do what they are required to do by law would not be so lightly dismissed in any other field of government activity. The penalties for not registering the birth of a child, for not registering a car or not registering a firearm would equate to very serious penalties yet the penalty for not registering to vote is only the most nominal penalty.
The most fundamental part of the exercise of a democratic franchise is to actually be on the roll in the first place and the legislation treats it as if it is a second thought. I turn now to recommendation No. 20, which will not be overwhelmingly supported by members opposite. This relates to specified prohibited donors. I can understand a time when one might have said that we did not want a particular class of person donating to political parties because of the perceived influence they would have in the policy-making process—there are three categories of persons under the existing Act who are prohibited donors—but that has all gone by the wayside. Now one cannot donate $1 million, $100,000, $50,000 or even $10,000. The expenditure caps enacted with the help of the New South Wales Greens—
The Hon. Robert Borsak: Your mates.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: My very dear friends.
Dr John Kaye: Stop misleading the House.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I should point out—Hansard does not normally record irony; I hope my accent does not allow irony to be missed in this instance—with the help of The Greens. Eventually, they did 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23135
do the right thing, despite much twisting of arms within their own party when it looked like they were going to renege on their own party policy. They supported the decision to institute proper caps on donations, all of which now makes it completely unnecessary to have classes of prohibited donations, unless one wishes to be particularly malicious towards sectors of legal industries in Australia. If one were to do that, then there is a whole series of moral guardians who may well suggest there are other areas of the legal industry in Australia that should be prohibited from donating to political parties. I fully support recommendation No. 20 relating to the removal of classes of prohibited donors on the proviso that the existing caps in relation to donation quantum are maintained. I congratulate the committee, particularly the committee staff, who had to deal with a range of technical matters. Once again the committee secretariat has proved to be wonderful support for members of Parliament in the conduct of their duties. I commend the report and the committee's recommendations to the House.
Dr JOHN KAYE [5.28 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report 3/55 from May 2013 entitled "Review of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981". I state at the outset that the report contains some sensible recommendations but everything must be measured against the following observation. Nothing could highlight the importance of a healthy democracy more than those countries that do not have a healthy democracy and whose populations suffer as a consequence. Syria and North Korea have a complete absence of democracy and a complete absence of human rights. There is limited democracy in Iran but the limitations of that democracy guarantee that individuals within Iran who dissent from the ruling orthodoxy of the Government are persecuted mercilessly. The Iranian message is that it is not just democracy in name but it is deep democracy that is needed to protect human rights.
New South Wales enjoys the benefits of a healthy democracy—a democracy that changes government on a somewhat regular basis, gives individuals a say, and produces outcomes that are mostly rational, or sometimes less than rational, but at least outcomes that respect the diversity that is required to maintain human rights and civil liberties. The report that came forward to this House I think missed a number of key issues that could have strengthened that democracy. Nothing can stand still in the twenty-first century; everything needs to adjust to the realities that face us. Indeed, as our demography changes, as this State's economy changes and as its position within the nation and its region changes, there is real need to change.
The report did not challenge the issue of single-member electorates, or even look at the need to spread power away from a system that often disenfranchises more than 50 per cent of an electorate. The report did not really address the issue of money politics—where wealth is able to purchase an outcome. Certainly, the 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012 changes to the Electoral Funding Act produced some progress. Nonetheless, third parties can still advertise and spend massive amounts of money, effectively outsourcing the campaign expenditure of the big parties. We still have in New South Wales dollar politics.
The committee did not address the ability of parties to promulgate false and misleading statements about their opponents. Indeed, in the Federal election that we have just been through we saw a number of examples of that. The report also failed to address what I think is a very significant issue: the capacity of political parties to hide the expenditure on a particular electorate in the overall party expenditure, and thereby avoid the reality of expenditure caps. I have spoken in this House before about the 2011 election and what happened in the seat of Port Macquarie, where The Nationals clearly spent beyond the cap by hiding amounts within the threshold of their main party expenditure.
There are some sensible suggestions in this report. As with the previous speaker, I agree with the idea of combining the Electoral Commissioner and the Election Funding Authority into one corporation that is independently chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, with the Electoral Commissioner and Auditor-General being on the governing body as that makes perfect sense, and where the Electoral Commissioner is independently charged with the task of running elections. Another sensible reform is advocated on the issue of the soundness of mind test, which does not work and can be used to unfairly disadvantage people.
That test is being fixed, and that is a good thing. Untangling the third party donations provisions from the political party donations provisions is a reform that we recommended in an inquiry in early 2012. This sensible approach should be followed. It will make matters much easier to understand. The treatment of GST in expenditure and reclaiming same is another matter. I have to admit, having been a campaign coordinator for The Greens in a highly successful election in 2003, I was shocked at the end of that campaign by the way GST was dealt with. In fact, I think it delivered a windfall gain to our party that we were not expecting. 23136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
The Hon. Robert Borsak: You did not say no to it.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I think it delivered a windfall to all political parties who got political funding in 2003 quite unexpectedly.
The Hon. John Ajaka: And you were too honourable to take it?
Dr JOHN KAYE: We challenged it. We actually said that there was an error; but we were corrected in the end. I want to go in particular to one issue, probably the most important on which the committee got it substantially wrong. Contrary to what the Government Whip said in his contribution, repealing division 4A of part 6 would be a grave error. Division 4A of part 6 bans property developers, tobacco companies and liquor and gaming industrial entities and their representative bodies from making donations. It is correct that corporate entities are banned by the changes made to the Act in 2012. However, division 4A of part 6 bans close associates of those entities from making donations.
There is good reason for that ban in reality. Take 10 people who are close associates of a property developer—the family of the owner, the chief executives of the companies, the members of the board of that company: each of those can donate $5,000. There is a handy donation of $50,000 from one relatively small property developer—not directly from the property developer, but from people closely associated with the developer. Aggregated across the entire property development industry, the repeal of division 4A of part 6 would inevitably reopen the floodgates to the corrupting influence of property developers.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The Electoral Commissioner disagrees with you.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Keep your head, Peter. You had your chance. It is now my chance. By the repeal of part 4A we go back to the bad old days of influence peddling; we go back to the bad old days when laws were written by those who can muster campaign donations. It was one of Nathan Rees's best achievements, after a long campaign by my colleague—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You're a disgrace.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you very much for that, Amanda; I acknowledge that interjection.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Well, you are a disgrace.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge that interjection. One of the best things that Nathan Rees did as Premier was to ban donations by real estate property developers, after a long campaign by my colleague Lee Rhiannon. People say, "Well, why ban these particular donations?" Property developers have a long and dishonourable history of corrupting political process—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about the gambling industry?
Dr JOHN KAYE: I will get to that in a minute—and peddling their capacity to change the laws. The tobacco industry is legal, but it kills 50 per cent of those who use tobacco and we do not want their money infecting public policy. The alcohol industry—as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would no doubt agree—has a dramatic impact on public policy, as we saw through the liquor promotion guidelines. The gambling industry affects not just the 2.1 per cent of adults in New South Wales who are at moderate risk of being vulnerable or vulnerable to gambling, but the 10 people for each of those individuals who will be affected by their succumbing. Removing division 4A will reopen those floodgates and will re-create the same problems that we had before. Yes, we have limitations on donations and, yes, we have a ban on corporate donations. Those are good things.
But allowing a back door for property developers to start donating again is a major threat. It might suit The Nationals and it might suit the Liberal Party, but it is not in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. I want to finish by saying that I am concerned about the proposal in this report to weaken the vouching requirements. Those vouching requirements are an important transparency measure. They require political parties to submit samples of the leaflets that they print and to submit samples of core flutes that they put up. These important provisions ensure that the submissions made for electoral funding by political parties are real and sensible, and that they reflect what really went on. To remove those vouching requirements—and I note the Government Whip frowning— 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23137
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Because the commissioner doesn't want them either.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I have prepared a report; I know exactly what must go in those reports, and I know how hard they are to prepare, but they certainly make sense. [Time expired.]
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [5.38 p.m.], in reply: I thank my colleagues who made contributions to the debate. Once again I thank the previous chair and committee members for the way they conducted themselves and for their considered input into the work of the inquiry. I thank Hansard and the committee secretariat for their assistance and professionalism during the inquiry and in the preparation of the report. I thank the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner and the staff of the New South Wales Electoral Commission for their ongoing contribution to the work of this important committee. I commend the report to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4
Report: The Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes
Debate resumed from 27 August 2013.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.40 p.m.]: The report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 entitled "The Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes", dated 15 May 2013, would be more appropriately entitled, "The Trojan Horse of Medical Marijuana". While the report addresses many serious and multi-generational issues, they are trivialised and mentioned only to be dismissed on pages 8 to 10 and 55 of the 95-page report. Indeed, Family Voice Australia is mentioned several times, but its representatives who gave evidence felt that the committee treated their testimony with derision. Clearly, the report's authors inhabit an entirely different factual space.
Given that the report takes a view that is seriously in conflict with that of leading international medical scientists, it is worthwhile considering the conduct of the hearings and the investigation, and the methodology adopted in compiling the report. The committee made little attempt to disguise its dismissal of leading expert evidence that does not endorse its liberal proposals. Further, it treats as evidence unsubstantiated lay accounts of what amounts to medical miracles attributable to cannabis. It would appear that no attempt has been made to secure medical verification for any of the statements made. In fact, a list of comments has been compiled and accepted at face value. Some experts such as Professor Ian Webster and Dr Alex Wodak are well known to share a common liberal worldview, and this shared bias amongst the experts appearing before the committee should have been evident and made explicit in the report.
Moreover, many of the groups that appeared before the committee clearly share a common leftist or overtly pro-homosexual social agenda. Those groups include ACON, Positive Life NSW, Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations and the National Association of People with HIV Australia, Hepatitis NSW, and the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. That is relevant because the committee has effectively found in favour of giving smoked cannabis to AIDS patients, most of whom would be homosexual. Numerous surveys have shown that the cannabis use rate within the homosexual community is of the order of 90 per cent. The report admits that any patients who have had prior contact with crude cannabis would be most unlikely to avail themselves of its recommendations.
One of the key witnesses, Dr Alex Wodak, the president of the leading drug liberalisation lobby group the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, admits that it is merely a Trojan horse approach. It is the thin edge of the wedge for the ruthless and relentless pursuit of his well-known full drug decriminalisation agenda. In summary, the internationally accepted wisdom of the best medical and scientific investigations has been disregarded and unsubstantiated non-medical accounts are accepted at face value and elevated to the status of evidence with what appears to be effectively no attempt to investigate these comments in a rigorous manner. Moreover, the testimony of experts whose social liberalism is well known was uncritically and unthoughtfully accepted, and without comment.
Before dealing with selected comments on the report itself, it is worthwhile to state clearly what the report recommends. It has not recommended that raw cannabis be supplied to patients with chronic illness or 23138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
chronic pain. Its major recommendation is that patients with terminal illness be allowed to smoke crude leaf cannabis. It is surmised that in this context that means homosexual patients with AIDS. That is made explicit on page xiv at paragraph four. The report also recommends that pharmaceutical cannabinoid products be made available after appropriate medical evaluation at a cost that terminally ill patients can afford. While the report makes so much of demonstrating compassion that it is almost the touchstone for its logic, it excludes those chronically ill patients whose cause it may at first blush be seen to champion. In other words, the report has found in favour of the homosexual and liberal lobbies that were well represented before the committee.
Given this perspective, and given the high rate of cannabis use and dependence in the homosexual community, one must wonder how much of the pain or other illness under consideration was either caused or exacerbated by prior cannabis use. This is more than a theoretical consideration because cannabis withdrawal can be physically very uncomfortable and include vomiting, diarrhoea, agitation, anxiety, sleeplessness, muscle aches, angry outbursts and generally chaotic and disordered behaviour. Given that cannabis is an accepted immunosuppressant and that pain is now known to be subject to important modulation by immune activity, the opportunity for direct interaction between the two exists. The clinical scenario with which we are dealing in many cases no doubt involved cannabis dependence, so we must ask whether the proposals in the report put Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
A further key piece of evidence was also overlooked. Page 21 of the report states that the issues relating to cannabis are only one small part of the concerns raised by the pain management community. The search for an improved main medication management plan has occupied medical researchers for at least 50 years. Recently major breakthroughs have been made by a joint group from Adelaide and Colorado demonstrating that much chronic pain actually occurs because of self-perpetuating chronic inflammatory circuits that are set up in the brain and spinal cord, and that modulation of these pathways holds excellent hope for dramatic new improvements in pain management. Because a key modulator of this process is the toll-like receptor 4, blockers of this receptor are a key investigational target of academic and pharmaceutical research groups in many nations. In other words, the primary issue being raised—namely, the management of chronic pain—now offers much better treatments and in the normal course of pharmaceutical development they are about to improve dramatically.
The committee's uncritical approach to the taking of evidence has resulted in some striking anomalies. For example, Dr Katelaris's comment that the processes of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which emphasise safety and efficacy, are problematic—and by implication deserve to be circumvented because drugs have side effects—was oddly ignored by the committee. Dr Alex Wodak states that the harms from recreational cannabis may not apply to medicinal cannabis "because it is likely to be used in smaller quantities, with more purity and more consistency". That appears to be internally contradictory because the availability of an assured supply of high-grade cannabis with greater consistency may in fact lead to higher consumption. Again, the committee made no comment about that statement.
Similarly, in reporting Dr Wodak's extraordinary statement that crude medical cannabis has been used in many nations but "no serious problems have occurred" gives no credence to evidence to the contrary, including United Nations data, the dramatic reduction in the number of Dutch cannabis dispensing coffee shops by 60 per cent, or the close association with much of the violent high school shooting sprees in the United States in recent times and the Boston bombers with cannabis use abuse or, for that matter, the explicit statement on page 16 that significant diversion has indeed occurred from the American medical marijuana program. Dr Wodak further states that cannabis-related harms are more easily controlled in a medical context than in a recreational context.
That is a classic non sequitur because the now extensively demonstrated toxicity of cannabis has been shown to be related intrinsically to cannabis itself. Under his proposals, total community exposure will clearly increase and virtually all of these described effects are related to dose and lifetime exposure. Similarly, Dr Wodak and Dr Katelaris's assertions on page 45 that patient choice to smoke cannabis is important to compliance completely lacks medical or evidentiary substantiation. Given the considerable hazards involved this report should be rejected. [Time expired.]
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.49 p.m.]: I speak in favour of the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 entitled, "The Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes." One of the striking features of the report and its deliberations was the incredibly diverse composition of the committee. It has representatives, I think, from five different political parties and people from right across the political spectrum. Each member of the committee came with his or her own prejudices or world views. One of 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23139
the compelling aspects of the committee report was that its members looked beyond those starting points to the evidence that was presented to the committee. Sometimes that evidence was quite startling and compelling. The recommendations, which were unanimously endorsed, were achieved under the very effective chairpersonship of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, who is unable to be here. Under her guidance and leadership the deliberations were respectful and thoughtful and reached a consensus position.
But if we reflect on the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile it might be thought that we were freewheeling back to the Haight-Ashbury sixties era and suggesting that there should be free dope on every corner. Even the most careful reader of this report would not find any general recommendations for drug law reform, or liberalisation of the laws governing marijuana specifically. In fact, the committee and its membership were very careful to look essentially towards taking a more practical and—dare I say it?—more compassionate approach to persons who were terminally ill or had moved from HIV infection to AIDS. There was a suggestion by the committee that for persons in this category the Department of Health should establish a register of authorised patients and carers who would be certified and that persons in that limited category should be immune from criminal prosecution for minor breaches of cannabis possession.
This recommendation was not suggesting liberalisation or making marijuana more available; it was simply a practical recognition that, while there have been significant increases in pain management through commercially available pharmacological products, those did not suit all persons. In fact, the universal medical evidence that came before the committee was that, while there certainly were side effects from cannabis use, most drugs had side effects—including drugs available on prescription for persons with chronic or terminal illnesses. Sometimes those side effects were not only negative but also profoundly negative: they seriously impinged on the quality of life of those persons for whom quality of life was already a significant challenge.
The committee did not endorse any enhanced recreational use of marijuana but suggested that we should, in a practical way, recognise that many people who are not being adequately catered for in relation to pain relief were using crude marijuana product and, in so doing, were exposing themselves potentially to the vagaries of the criminal justice system. Out of compassion for those persons we recognised that there should be a way for them to avoid being put into the criminal justice system, which would compound the already difficult circumstances they were in—many facing the end of their lives.
To suggest that this report is somehow a Trojan horse is a travesty not only of the careful and thoughtful work of the committee supported by the secretariat but also of the evidence of those witnesses at the committee hearings. It is simply an unsustainable proposition to suggest that the committee ignored the best medical and scientific evidence in favour of what was termed the "uncritical acceptance of so-called liberal experts". In fact, the overwhelming medical evidence that came before the committee was in favour of cannabinoids—not necessarily crude marijuana product—being part of the array of pain management options available for persons with terminal or chronic illness. I was struck by the evidence of Professor Cousins, the director of the Pain Management Research Institute at Royal North Shore Hospital.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: He is a doctor, is he not?
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Trevor Khan; he is a doctor. He is a professor of pain management at the Royal North Shore Hospital, not some kind of trendy lefty from the inner city. The point is that this person, who has enormous standing in the medical community, said that it needs to be one of the options available in the array of pain management treatments. The first recommendation of this committee was its in-principle support for the timely, evidence-based expansion of access to improved cannabis pharmacotherapies by additional patient groups, including those suffering from chronic pain. But we recognised that there needed to be a lot more research. Because of marijuana's associations with recreational use and, in the past, the counterculture, there is a wholly inadequate cohort of medical research in this field. Medical researchers had simply prioritised other matters. We recognised also the evidence of Cancer Voices NSW, whose membership indicated that—
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Were they not a radical group?
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Trevor Khan; it was a radical group that indicated it did not want to run foul of the criminal law. The evidence of that group was that its membership preferred having access to a commercially available pharmacological product. I think the majority of members of the committee thought that was a desirable outcome but at present no such pharmacological 23140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
products are widely available in Australia, unlike overseas. That is a matter for which the committee indicated strong support. To run down the committee's report as being part of some kind of pro-homosexual agenda— which I think was the way in which it was termed—is profoundly troubling.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I also acknowledge that interjection of the Hon. Trevor Khan. The point is that there was an attempt to denigrate the seriousness of the subject matter by suggesting it was only of practical application or interest to a particular sector of the population. Whether or not that was the intention of the previous speaker, he engaged in a demonization and vilification of a part of the community which does not become members of this House. I wish to dissociate myself from that—
The Hon. Trevor Khan: As would many members of this House.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE:—as would many members of this House. Many members would also dissociate themselves from comments that most AIDS sufferers were homosexual. Even if that were true so what? The fact is that persons suffering from chronic and terminal illness require compassionate support not only by all members of this House but also by all members of society, supported by a humane social and public policy in the health sphere. This report, which tried to go beyond rhetoric and ideology and to look at the facts, reflects very well on all members of the committee who were prepared to look at the scientific and medical evidence. They did not look at the hyperbole or at the ideological agendas; they looked at the medical and scientific evidence to see what was available and saw that in some circumstances the medical application of cannabis was of some value for those people for whom available pharmacological products were inadequate. All members of this House should read the report carefully and urge the O'Farrell Government to come forward with a positive response to a thoughtful report that contains very conservative recommendations.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT
Report: Adequacy of Water Storages in New South Wales
Debate resumed from 20 August 2013.
The Hon. WALT SECORD [6.01 p.m.]: I make a contribution to the take-note debate on report No. 37 of the Standing Committee on State Development entitled, "Adequacy of Water Storages in New South Wales". I will make some observations, as there is an overlap between the committee's deliberations and my responsibilities as Labor's shadow Minister for Water. While the committee concerned itself with statewide water storage there was discussion of the Greater Sydney water supply system and related matters. I draw the attention of members to chapters 3 and 4 and appendix 6, which canvas urban water and Sydney Catchment Authority storages. As background, the chair of the committee, the Hon. Rick Colless, said in the report's foreword that over the past 20 years there have been many changes to the administration of water throughout the State. These changes have occurred in rural areas as well as in Sydney, the Blue Mountains, the Illawarra, the Central Coast and the Hunter.
After the giardia and cryptosporidium incidents in 1998, the Carr Labor Government introduced tough laws to protect Sydney's drinking water supply through the Sydney Catchment Authority. In 2000 the Water Management Act separated the ownership of land and water resources, created water sharing plans and introduced regular environmental flows as releases of water from existing storages. I also remind members that in 2010 the former Labor Government passed laws to set up the Central Coast Water Corporation to oversee and protect the scarce water supply for Wyong shire and Gosford City Council areas. I have often observed that we live on the driest inhabited continent in the world; just a few years ago New South Wales was in the grip of drought. Those who look at current storage levels and think that low levels are a threat of the past have very short memories: They live in denial about the nature of Australia's climate.
We must always remind ourselves to conserve water and that climate change is real. Moreover, some regions conserve water better than others. For example, the Hunter has the best water conservation record in Australia. The Lower Hunter's water consumption levels have dropped by 12 per cent in the past nine years, 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23141
despite its population growing by 10 per cent. Lower Hunter levels are due to a strong uptake in efficient showerheads, toilets and appliances, combined with a responsible industrial sector in the Hunter. Hunter Water provides drinking water to more than 560,000 people in the Lower Hunter. As at 6 September, water storage levels in the Hunter were at 94.2 per cent, with Anna Bay at 75.3 per cent, Grahamstown Dam at 95.2 per cent and Chichester Dam at 91.2 per cent. However, Hunter Water warned that the Lower Hunter is vulnerable to drought. I quote from its website:
Our dams fill quickly but they empty quickly as well.
It also says on the website:
Our water levels drop faster than most other major Australian urban centres during drought because we have shallow water storages and high evaporation rates.
Those are wise words and they indicate a community keen to plan for its future. But how does the O'Farrell Government support that? The O'Farrell Government slashes water efficiency programs that encourage families to use less water in order to increase its dividends for Sydney Water and Hunter Water. The O'Farrell Government should look at ways of reducing water usage rather than encouraging people to use more water. Just a few years ago we were in the worst drought in more than a century. This year New South Wales had its warmest January to August period on record. We have just experienced the mildest winter in more than 150 years.
Such a protracted dry period has implications for water and also bushfires—bushfires are raging today. In late August and early this month we had almost 2½ consecutive weeks of 20 degree or warmer weather in Sydney, with the first seven days of spring topping 21 degrees. It was the warmest first week of spring since 1865. Last Thursday, 5 September, the temperature in Penrith reached 29 degrees and on 7 September the temperature at Sydney Airport reached a maximum of 32.2 degrees. Yesterday the temperature in Sydney reached almost 24 degrees.
I now return to Sydney's current dam storage levels. As at 5 September, the Sydney Catchment Authority reported that water storage areas were at 93.7 per cent—that is a drop of 0.4 per cent over the last two weeks. I am advised that this is due to the winter heatwave. Individually, the various dams tell very different stories. For example, dams in the Blue Mountains are at 72 per cent, Woronora Dam is at 88.9 per cent, Warragamba Dam is at 95.9 per cent and Prospect Dam is at 57.3 per cent. The supply of drinking water on the Central Coast is very different to what it is in Sydney, the Blue Mountains, the Illawarra and the Lower Hunter. There are strong concerns about the future of the supply of drinking water on the Central Coast and the ability of the O'Farrell Government to respond to community concerns. That is why on 29 August I asked the following question without notice on the Central Coast Water Corporation:
When will the Central Coast Water Corporation commence operations given that it officially came into existence on 1 July 2011 and a board of five, including a chairperson, was appointed in December 2011?
It transpires that the O'Farrell Government has set up the board of the Central Coast Water Corporation, but there is considerable confusion about the organisation. On 29 August, when my office called the telephone inquiries number listed on its official website, the person who answered said that the Central Coast Water Corporation was in limbo. That is not good news for Central Coast communities. Adding further to the confusion, last week I received correspondence from the Central Coast Water Corporation saying that it has "yet to commence operations". I will clarify that: I received taxpayer-funded correspondence from an organisation to explain that it did not yet exist.
The Central Coast Water Corporation was able to answer my correspondence, but it was unable to respond to my freedom of information request about an E. coli outbreak in February 2012 in Gosford. It said no information existed on the Gosford E. coli incident, but it was able to issue alerts warning families to boil their water. Furthermore, another warning was issued to residents in April this year stating that they would experience incidences of "discoloured" tap water due to unusually high levels of manganese in the Central Coast water supply. I ask: Was this another warning from an organisation that does not exist? That said, I will continue to investigate and monitor the O'Farrell Government's response to water on the Central Coast. As for water storage levels on the Central Coast, as at 1 September 1 2013 its dams were at 62.3 per cent, with Mangrove Creek Dam at 61.9 per cent and Mardi Dam at 55.4 per cent. The Central Coast Water Corporation website warned:
The hot August weather has seen the Central Coast community use 568 million litres of water last week.
23142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
The website also reminded residents to follow Central Coast Water Wise Rules. The Central Coast Water Corporation is supposed to provide water to about 285,000 people in Wyong shire and Gosford City Council areas. This figure is tipped to increase to 350,000 by 2020. Water security and water storage on the Central Coast is one of the biggest issues facing the region. I will return to this issue in the future. On that note and in conclusion, I draw the attention of the House to a significant shift by the O'Farrell Government on water storage policy, which I place on the parliamentary record.
The incident involves a Channel 9 report on 20 August by finance journalist Ross Greenwood. Mr Greenwood was doing a major report on the Sydney desalination plant at Kurnell with Sydney Water Managing Director Kevin Young and the New South Wales Treasurer, Mike Baird. The Treasurer said that the desalination plant "is there as an insurance policy". After years of attacking the desalination plant the O'Farrell Government is now an advocate and a proponent of the desalination plant. It is good to see that the O'Farrell Government has finally recognised that the decision by former Premier Morris Iemma to build the desalination plant—
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: We have no choice. We're stuck with the white elephant.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: —to protect our water supply and storage levels. It took them six years. I thank members for their consideration and I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [6.10 p.m.]: As a committee member of the State development team, I am pleased to address the report entitled, "Adequacy of Water Storages in New South Wales". First, I extend my gratitude and thanks to the committee secretariat. These inquiries, hearings and reports would not have happened without their knowledge, advice and research. I also thank the chair, the Hon. Rick Colless, for his good leadership; the deputy chair, the Hon. Mick Veitch, who showed an extensive understanding of regional and rural New South Wales; and the other committee members.
The Hon. Walt Secord: What are the levels in the Shoalhaven?
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: The Hon. Walt Secord should stay where he is; I have something special for him. The inquiry was undertaken to assess whether water storage capacity in New South Wales is adequate to meet current and future water demands. The committee found that the primary role of most major water storages in New South Wales was to conserve water for agriculture, stock and domestic use and therefore reduce the variability of water availability across the State. The committee received 110 submissions and two supplementary submissions from a range of stakeholders including the New South Wales Government, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, and other local and regional organisations and groups. The committee held five public hearings: three at Parliament House, one in Wagga Wagga and one in Moree.
We also conducted five days of site visits throughout New South Wales; we visited the Shoalhaven, the Southern Highlands, Goulburn, Orange, Griffith, Wagga Wagga, Inverell and Moree. I extend my gratitude to those who made submissions, those who attended the hearings to give evidence and those who showed us around during our site visits. The committee noted the concerns of inquiry participants regarding the potentially negative impacts of water storages on the environment. The committee found that these impacts need to be balanced with the benefits of having water storages, including the longer-term security of providing a water supply for consumptive purposes, for irrigation and therefore food security purposes and potentially for a level of flood mitigation in certain areas.
The committee found that future water security for New South Wales will be achieved most effectively and efficiently by pursuing an integrated approach. It encouraged new storages, subject to comprehensive assessment of their costs, benefits, storage efficiency—that is, the volume to surface area ratio—geological suitability of the site, environmental considerations, community expectations and other factors as appropriate. The committee believes that all urban, industrial and agricultural water users in New South Wales have a responsibility to use water wisely and efficiently, and has recommended that as part of a multifaceted approach government should take an active role in facilitating the responsible use of water.
We note the positive responses of users to strategies to reduce demand and to efficiency incentive programs, and we believe that such measures should form part of an integrated water management approach. The committee made 19 recommendations. I will not mention them all, but I will refer to a couple of them. Recommendation 4 is that the New South Wales Government financially support the agriculture sector to use 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23143
more efficient water practices and encourage contributions from industry and the Commonwealth Government to support research and development in this area. One comment was that if we build dams we need to ensure that they are situated in the right place and that they supply water for the right reasons. In terms of working with asset maintenance of dams, in some cases, rather than building new dams or making dams safer, we could probably—
[Interruption]
I cannot believe the Hon. Walt Secord is leaving the Chamber. I still have something special to share with him.
The Hon. Walt Secord: If you're going to talk about the Shoalhaven I will stay. You never talk about the Shoalhaven.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Basically, we could invest in rural properties in terms of laser levelling or other water initiatives on site, instead of building another dam. Perhaps if the Government took an approach to that and if more properties had laser levelling they would increase water management to much higher levels and therefore have efficient outcomes on their properties and in crop yields. We looked at on-site and off-site storages and water harvesting. I think we can do a lot more in that regard. We see a lot of our water go down the drains and out to the ocean. We should be capitalising on opportunities to have storage areas throughout the State and fill those storages, instead of wasting the runoff.
Recommendation 14 is that the New South Wales Government, in undertaking the review of the New South Wales Dam Safety Committee and its relevant legislation, take into consideration the concerns raised in this inquiry and that the outcomes of the review be made public. One comment we heard was the one-in-one-million-year flood. We had a lot of fun with that; we could not believe that water utilities are planning for a one-in-one-million-year flood, then taking the risk analysis from that and basically building safety triggers based on such a massive calculation. If members want further information about that, I suggest they read the report. Recommendation 15 is that the New South Wales Government investigate the potential of strategically placed en route storages to extend water use and provide flexibility in water delivery in some river systems, particularly in the Murray-Darling.
Recommendation 16 is that the New South Wales Government commit to continuing an integrated water management and conservation policy, and that it foster responsible use of water in urban, industrial and agricultural settings. Recommendation 17—this is for the Hon. Walt Secord—is that the New South Wales Government ensure that storage proposals are comprehensively assessed in terms of costs, benefits, storage efficiency, geological suitability of the site, environmental considerations, community expectations and other factors as appropriate. It became obvious that the water utilities have a most unusual practice. There are about 107 water utilities throughout New South Wales. They are telling people to use less of the product they are selling. I do not know of any other business that tells people not to use more of its product. As people are using less of the product, the utilities will put up the price because they must make a return to deal with infrastructure and the asset management of that infrastructure.
The Hon. Walt Secord: It's called providing a public utility.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: That is the total definition of "ironic". The definition of "ironic" is a business asking people not to buy its product, then putting up the price of the product because people are not using it. Recommendation 19 is that the New South Wales Government commit to investing in water efficiency research and development; to informing an integrated, best practice approach to water management, and to making further advances in this area. One highlight of the inquiry was our visit to Keytah farm, where we learned quite a lot. Keytah farm is a massive operation. It gave us a full sense of the wonderful producers on mega-farms doing their best to provide produce for Australia and employment. It is a hard life. There is no easy way to get up each day and live that life. It is hard yakka day in and day out, never mind not having enough water. They do a wonderful job.
The initiatives of the committee will help Keytah farm and other places as we grow our partnerships to make sure that we manage the water of New South Wales efficiently and effectively. Droughts bring to our attention the real price of water. We must ensure that we do not price farmers off their farms in rural and regional New South Wales with the price of water. We must ensure that they are able to use water efficiently and that they are given an incentive or help in times of drought. The definition of "drought" does not take into account the boundaries of local government areas. I commend this report to the House. 23144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
Dr JOHN KAYE [6.20 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I address the report of the Standing Committee on State Development entitled, "Adequacy of Water Storages in New South Wales". I will address an issue raised by the Hon. Walt Secord in relation to the desalination plant and the comments of the Hon. Mike Baird. I do not care what the Hon. Mike Baird said, but I do care about the ongoing impact on water bills in Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains of a desalination plant that not only was not needed but also was committed to in December 2006 by the Iemma Government before the storage levels of Warragamba Dam reached the 30 per cent—they were at 34 per cent—threshold identified in the 2006 Metropolitan Water Plan. Iemma made a bad, panic decision in the lead-up to an election.
But what was absolutely unforgiveable was the decision of the then water Minister, Nathan Rees, in June 2007 to go ahead with the project when the rain had begun and storage levels were at 44 per cent. There was no excuse for his decision to sign the contract for the construction of that plant. Any sensible government would have put the project on hold and would have avoided paying out $2 billion for a desalination plant that may never be used. There is no record in Sydney's past of its dams having dropped below the 30 per cent trigger mark identified in the Metropolitan Water Plan.
The Hon. Walt Secord: In 1936 they stopped brewing beer, it was so bad.
Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Walt Secord has to go back to 1936. There is a significant difference between 1936 and 2013.
The Hon. Rick Colless: That was before Warragamba.
Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Rick Colless said that was before Warragamba Dam, which is the largest drinking water storage in the Southern Hemisphere.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Do you support new dams?
Dr JOHN KAYE: No, I do not support new dams. The Hon. Walt Secord is playing scholastic games. It is not about new dams, it is about our existing dam. If it does not rain again and we have the worst drought that we have ever known, the water level in the dam will not drop below 50 per cent in five years. There is no reason to have a desalination plant that is sitting around gathering dust and accruing costs. We are paying something like $140 million a year to Veolia to not operate the plant.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Does Eddie have shares in Veolia?
Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge that interjection. We are paying off a capital construction cost of $2 billion. It is that very example of massive stupidity by the former Labor Government that should warn us against entering into big infrastructure projects that look attractive. It is a simplistic argument to say that New South Wales needs new dams because it is on a dry continent it. It is also a simplistic and economically illiterate argument to say, "It's good we built the desalination plant because now we have it sitting there waiting." Under no circumstances would we waste our money and buy travel insurance two decades before we go overseas. We would wait until we were going overseas before we bought it. What Morris Iemma and Nathan Rees did was a disgraceful act of public policy ignorance and stupidity and it will cost this State in perpetuity for a desalination plant that may never operate.
Thankfully, this report rejected that kind of simplistic thinking. It is a credit to the evidence that was given before the committee and to some committee members that this committee did not fall for the simplistic, but totally unfounded, assertion that we need more storage because we live on a dry continent. This report did not recommend Welcome Reef, which was a unanimous decision and a good outcome. This report did not create the utterly false hope of drought-proofing New South Wales because that cannot be done. Droughts are a harsh and savage reality in the bush and for water-dependent industries. We cannot manufacture water. This report contains some sensible suggestions, such as, more focus on recycling, demand management, conservation and stormwater harvesting. Those are sensible suggestions that people in the environment movement, The Greens and this Parliament have been making for two decades.
We need decentralised, not centralised, infrastructure and demand side management if we are to be resilient. Demand side activities are cheaper, better for the environment and more responsive to environmental stress and drought stress. They will work and they have been proven to work time and again. I was concerned about a number of issues in this report. Quite correctly the report sensibly recognises that there is a balance 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23145
between urban water usage, agricultural usage, industrial water usage and environmental water usage. This is a good place to start in any debate about water. Unfortunately, the report failed to get the balance right in a number of areas, particularly the environment. Recommendation No. 8 is most frightening. It suggests that the principles of the Water Management Act be changed so that high-security needs in regulated rivers and commercial water supply for towns and utilities be put ahead of the environment. In so doing, this report walks into the old division of environment versus economy.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: People are more important than fish.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Of course people are more important than the environment and at no stage has anyone challenged the idea that we need a balance between those issues. The short-term thinking is that you can sacrifice the environment to keep an abattoir working through a period of drought when there is not enough water to protect the environment. It is frightening that that false notion came out of a parliamentary report. If the environment is devastated and if water is denied to the rivers and streams inevitably blue-green algae will grow, salinity will rise, fish stock will collapse, water birds will collapse and the ecosystem that provides the services—that gathers and transports water around New South Wales—will collapse. One of the most telling experiences of my life was when I spoke to a beef farmer from Macquarie Marshes. He said five immortal words to me, "Fat ducks mean fat cows." What he was saying in those five crucial and laconic words, typical of Australian farmers, is that if the environment is protected the productivity capacity of the land is protected.
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: I understood it.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I am glad the Hon. Marie Ficarra understood it. She is obviously several intelligence points above the rest of the Government members. To protect watercourses and to ensure they continue to operate through and after droughts it is essential to maintain water supply and the productive capacity, both industrial and agricultural, of inland New South Wales. To fail to learn that lesson is to return to the catastrophes of the early droughts of the twentieth century where the continued extraction of water, despite the loss of rainfall, did untold damage not only during the drought but also after the drought, taking decades to recover. It is a tragedy that the committee did not hear evidence from environmentalists or water experts. In fact, in the discussion leading up to recommendation No. 8 the only sane voice—and I never thought I would say this—was David Harriss, the State Water Commissioner.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about Stuart Khan?
Dr JOHN KAYE: Stuart Khan is an urban water expert who gave evidence on urban water. If the Government Whip had been listening he would have heard me say that in the discussion leading up to recommendation No. 8 the only voices heard were those of irrigators, who did not take into account in any way whatsoever the long-term consequences of what they were recommending. It is to be hoped that the O'Farrell Government listens to its own water experts and water experts around Australia and understands that protecting the existing hierarchy within the Water Management Act is crucial not just to protecting the environment but also to protecting the industry and the long-term health of our farms and our irrigators.
Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
Pursuant to sessional orders debate on budget estimates proceeded with.
BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS
Financial Year 2013-14
Debate resumed from 27 August 2013.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.31 p.m.]: I have the dubious pleasure of following many Coalition speakers in this budget take-note debate. Once again they have given us breathless praise of a fairly mediocre budget and rewritten history about the former Labor Government's record of budget management despite the fact I have placed on the record many times that the Coalition's black hole claims were shot down by not one but two independent assessments. However, I will not go into that today. Although my usual target is the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, I will not have a go at him either because sometimes he can be a nice person. This budget delivers only a few things of note—three deficits in three budgets and three more deficits than was delivered by 23146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
the former Labor Government over its full 16 years in office. It also delivers rising debt. Every year Government members when in opposition would give an intellectually bereft analysis and constantly say that we were the highest taxing Government in the history of New South Wales.
Mr Scot MacDonald: True.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Mr Scot MacDonald says that is true but, using the same measure, this Government is now the highest taxing. In fact, tax revenue has gone up by $3 billion since this Government came to office and is now running at $23.455 billion, but that is because the economy is growing, as it did every year under the Labor Government, which is why tax receipts increased. Yet every year intellectually bereft members opposite would stand up and claim we were the highest taxing Government in history.
Coalition members have regaled us with several themes in their contributions. First, they suggest that the Government has cut payroll tax by raising the threshold, saying that 1,300 businesses have been removed from payroll tax. However, they forget to say that although they raised the threshold, they abolished indexation of the threshold. They have gone back to the bad old days where businesses creep into the tax bracket every year because there is no indexation. It is a cynical ploy because in a few years' time the Government will announce with great fanfare that it will raise the threshold and cut the payroll tax burden for the people and businesses of New South Wales despite the fact it removed Labor's initiative of indexing the threshold to prevent businesses from creeping into the tax bracket in the first place. For the Government to say that it has raised the threshold is an argument that is bereft of any honesty or real value apart from political value.
Members opposite have spoken about aggregate figures yet the budget papers give the lie to some of their statements. Net debt to gross State product is currently the highest in over a decade and getting higher under the current Government in both the general government sector and the total State sector. In 2005-06, under the former Labor Government, general government sector net debt to gross State product was 0.4 per cent. It is now 3.2 per cent, increasing to 3.6 per cent in 2015-16. The total State sector is 9.9 per cent, the highest in a decade, which gives the lie to claims that the Government is reducing debt. In fact, the Government inherited very low debt. Although one would not know it from the recent Federal election campaign the level of debt in New South Wales, relative to most other western nations, is very low. The figures give the lie to statements by members opposite.
The budget papers show a very healthy growth in gross State product under the former Labor Government from $298 billion in 2003-04 when I entered this place to $455 billion in 2011-12. It has now risen to $494 billion in 2013-14. It is interesting that the growth rate in gross State product in the last two years of the former Labor Government was higher than the growth rate in the first two years of this Government; growth was 11.2 per cent during the last two years of the previous Government versus 8.7 per cent under the current Government. Contrary to the bragging of members opposite, economic growth does not match that of the previous Government and Government members are incorrect when they constantly talk about the dampening impact on the economy of the previous Government.
Members opposite listed hospitals that the Government is funding in rural New South Wales so I will refer to a few of them. The Hon. Niall Blair referred to South East Regional Hospital at Bega, which is 90 per cent funded by the former Federal Labor Government as part of the economic stimulus package under the Nation Building Program. That stimulus package funded other hospitals and the Hon. Marie Ficarra referred to hospitals at Lismore, which is federally funded, Muswellbrook—not federally funded but we have all heard about the problems with the project there—Kempsey, Port Macquarie, Parkes, which is not, and Forbes, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Hillston, Peak Hill and Yamba which are. Without the economic stimulus funding for regional health provided by the former Federal Labor Government the list of hospitals being constructed in rural New South Wales would be meagre indeed. In fact, it would be pretty much the same record as the one from the Greiner Government where just one hospital was built in rural New South Wales—Port Macquarie Base Hospital, that disastrous public-private partnership where taxpayers paid for the hospital twice.
It is a fact that Federal funding is going into those projects and that without that funding those projects would not be proceeding. The new Federal Coalition Government has said that it will abolish or cut funding to the rest of those nation building infrastructure projects. Indeed, those cuts are listed in the savings on the Liberal Party's website. That means we will not see a continuation of capital funding for new projects. I would assume the Coalition will honour the projects already announced. I am aware it has said it will honour projects on which contracts have been signed, but it has made it clear that projects on which contracts have not been signed will 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23147
not be going ahead. Its savings documents list more than $1 billion each year as savings made from cutting the rest of those programs. That is bad news for the future capital needs of New South Wales hospitals, which had been helped so significantly by the former Federal Labor Government.
I turn now to some of the local issues in the budget and in my portfolio areas. First, I briefly mention the accelerated program of Crown road sales in which the Government is engaging. I have discovered in recent days—through questions asked in estimates hearings and also through watching carefully grants from the recreational fishing funds—that the Government is using recreational fishing funding to actually meet some of the cost of selling those Crown roads. The Government is using Fisheries inspectors to go out and do the inspections on whether the closure of a Crown road will impact on access for fishers. If it is proposed to sell a Crown road, that part of the process must happen; we need to ensure that their access to areas is not restricted by the closure or selling of Crown roads. But, further, the costs of that part of the process should be paid from funds generated by the sale of those lands.
Those funds should not be taken from recreational fishers, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment. Recently, the department applied for a grant from recreational fishing trust funds to fund an inspector in the department to assist in the process of inspecting and reviewing Crown roads. It is a disgrace that those fishing licence funds—funds set up to make sure that recreational fishing got extra facilities—are now being used by this Government in effect to increase the profits from the sale of Crown assets. I turn now to the Monaro electorate which, as everyone would know, is an area of continuing interest for me. The list of capital projects for the Monaro electorate is intriguing, first, for the paucity of new projects in this budget.
The roads funding for the Monaro electorate still has not got to the level that it was in the final years of the Labor Government. What I find most distressing—and I am pleased the Minister for Roads and Ports is in the Chamber at the moment—is that this year less than $2 million is allocated to the Kings Highway. I took on trust, as people in the local area did, the Minister's commitment to fully fund the recommendations following the recent review of the Kings Highway. I am absolutely certain that that needs more than the $2 million that the Government has allocated this year. In each of its last four years the previous Government's average investment in the Kings Highway was more than $10 million a year from the State Government alone, as well as Federal money. At least that amount of money must continue to be invested in this highway. To keep pace with inflation, it actually needs to be about $15 million a year.
I am not asking and no-one in our area—except some writers to the Canberra Times on occasions—is asking for a duplicated Kings Highway, or a freeway to the coast. That is not realistic in the medium to longer term. But we need a continuation of the really good work that was being done in the last few years of the Labor Government. The section of the Kings Highway between Queanbeyan and Bungendore, which was rated by the NRMA seven or eight years ago as the worst part of the road, was significantly improved to the point where that issue did not appear in the last NRMA review. Work needs to be continued on the section that now needs assistance, which is from Braidwood to the Clyde Mountain. That work is essential, and it needs a lot more funding than the $2 million allocated.
Most of the items on the list of capital works in the Monaro electorate are actually programs funded by the previous Government, including the Cooma TAFE workshop, the Jindabyne sport and recreation upgrades and the Perisher Range redevelopments. There has been a massive drop in funding for social housing upgrades in Queanbeyan. It is worrying that we are not seeing new public housing funded there this year. That public housing is needed. Previously there was a significant boost in public housing in the community. That funding needs to be continued to ensure that social housing is provided for those who need it. A number of items in the Monaro listed for funding actually show existing funding. The overall theme that we are seeing in the Monaro electorate is only what every other electorate would be entitled to.
In this budget we are not getting what we used to get—strong proactive action to address local issues. That is now sadly missing in the Monaro area. Unfortunately, given the outcome of the recent Federal election, it looks likely that we will see the same thing. One new investment in the Monaro electorate is the upgrade of the new Services NSW facility—the old Roads and Traffic Authority office in east Queanbeyan. The idea of having one-stop-shop services is fine. But to me it is just not logical to locate that service in a centre in an area of Queanbeyan quite a long way from the centre of town that does not have public transport. To get there from Karabar, Jerrabomberra or other parts of Queanbeyan other than east Queanbeyan involves a ride on two buses plus a walk. Why is the Government servicing only people who are able to get to the centre using their own vehicles? 23148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
I know a lot of the facility's services are now available online; but not everyone can access those services online. Certainly the poorer people in the community who often rely on public transcript to get to these locations do not have access to this facility. This facility should have been located in the centre of town, where the State Government has an office block. Unfortunately, that office block is being sold by this Government. Nearby parking concerns could easily have been resolved by using the showground next door. That would have required just a bit of thought. It is unfortunate that the current Government and the local member have not put appropriate thought into the location of that facility. I urge them to rethink the lack of public transport access to this facility.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.46 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to discuss the budget that is being considered by this Chamber. In doing so I mention the New South Wales fiscal position and the great work being done by the Liberal-Nationals Government to improve our State's financial position. Throughout the past two years the Liberal-Nationals in government have worked hard to reverse the damage done by the previous 16 years of Labor governments. Anyone who listened to the Hon. Steve Whan could get the impression that he thinks Labor is still in government; that they have not yet realised they are on the Opposition benches. New South Wales is the most populous State in Australia, yet it used to have the slowest economic growth rate in the country. How was that possible? The mismanagement and overspending of Labor governments made that possible.
One-third of Australia's economy is based in New South Wales. The Liberal-Nationals Government has returned New South Wales to the top of the pack, creating almost 100,000 jobs. The Liberal-Nationals Government has worked to improve the job opportunities of people living in regional New South Wales, with an extra 35,100 jobs being created since we came into power. We are financially responsible. The State is no longer plagued by reckless spending; we have returned the New South Wales budget to its target. The New South Wales economy is now outperforming the rest of Australia. This turnaround after 16 years of economic stagnation highlights the hard work of the Liberal-Nationals Government. Importantly, the 2013-2014 budget has not forgotten regional New South Wales; we are delivering more than ever before for regional New South Wales.
We understand that crime unfortunately occurs not only in the cities but also in regional areas, and we are trying to stem the incidence of crime by increasing police presence across the State. I take this opportunity to note the recent appointment of Commander Bruce Lyons as officer in charge of the Firearms Registry at Murwillumbah. He will oversee a comprehensive review of the NSW Firearms Registry—a review that is long overdue. I congratulate the Minister, the commissioner and the NSW Police Force on their commitment to improving the management of firearms in New South Wales and a commitment to that in this budget.
This budget provides funding for 624 new probationary constables in local area commands across regional New South Wales. To aid in this police recruitment drive the Government is investing $22 million to help with the construction of new stations at Parkes, Moree, Walgett, Coffs Harbour and Tweed-Byron. Since the Coalition took office more than 4,000 additional nurses have been employed in the New South Wales public health system, and 1,600 of them have been employed in regional communities. To maintain our quality amenities, the Government is investing more than $400 million in regional health care. Major investment in health infrastructure includes funding for the new South East Regional Hospital at Bega, the $77.5 million redevelopment of the hospital at Tamworth, the $42.1 million redevelopment of the hospital at Wagga Wagga, the redevelopment of hospitals at Dubbo, Kempsey, Lismore, Parkes and Forbes, the expansion of Port Macquarie Base Hospital and planning for a new hospital in Maitland.
New South Wales was the first State to sign up to the fully funded National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will provide vital support for people living in regional New South Wales. This Government is looking to the future by providing funding for an additional 15 positions for doctors training in the Rural Generalist Training Program and 16 medical training places in specialty training programs. Ensuring that doctors complete their training in regional centres will provide for the future of health services in country New South Wales by encouraging them to stay there. The Rural Fire Service will benefit from funds allocated for the construction, renovation and completion of fire stations in New Lambton, Merriwa, Rutherford, Barraba, Cardiff, Maryland, Salamander Bay, Wallerawang, Albion Park, Ballina and Port Macquarie. The $12.5 million that the Government has allocated to the Rural Fire Service demonstrates its commitment to the people of New South Wales. A new fire station is very welcome in towns such as Barraba, which has a population of 1,150.
The Government has employed an additional 500 schoolteachers in New South Wales schools since 2011 because it appreciates the importance of schools and TAFE to our local communities. This budget also allocates $66 million for capital works in regional New South Wales. Money has been set aside for a new school at Lake Cathie, which is a major achievement on the part of the fantastic member for Port Macquarie in her first 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23149
term of what will ultimately be a long and productive political career working for her constituents. Port Macquarie is the major population centre in the Federal electorate of Lyne, and the locals voted overwhelmingly for Dr David Gillespie last Saturday. The electorates of Lyne and Port Macquarie will now be able to make real advances in the programs they have missed out on over the dark days of Independent rule. The electorates of New England and Page will now experience a similar improvement having suffered under Labor and Independent rule for the past 10 years.
New facilities at Collarenebri Central School, Ulladulla High School, Bathurst High Campus and upgrades at Albury, Orange, Tamworth and Kingscliff TAFEs will secure better educational outcomes for people living in regional New South Wales. The Government has implemented the Connected Communities program, which is the first of its kind in Australia. Its aim is to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal children and young people, which were grossly ignored by the former Government. Regional infrastructure is very important to people living outside metropolitan areas and they expect and deserve the same treatment regardless of their postcode.
To this end, the Government is providing millions of dollars for infrastructure spending in regional areas. Regional New South Wales has secured 30 per cent of the Restart NSW funding for infrastructure projects. That is, $983 million will be spent on infrastructure projects, including nearly $1 billion for the continuation of the duplication of the Pacific Highway. I congratulate the Minister for Roads and Ports on securing that funding. I also congratulate him on finding the $178 million required for the Princes Highway upgrade, and that work is proceeding exceptionally well. The $43 million that has been allocated for the Bells Line of Road work is essential for the people of western New South Wales.
The Hon. Steve Whan: That will not build much.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is $43 million that the Labor Government did not spend on that road. It is a major advance and the honourable member should watch this space. The importance of roads for people living in rural towns cannot be overestimated nor can they be overfunded. There will never be enough money for regional roads because they are a lifeline for country people. They provide us with access to ports to export our produce and access from ports to supply us with our inputs. They often provide our only access to adjoining communities, regional cities, the coast and Sydney. Bridges are also of critical importance, and this budget provides $165 million over four years for the Bridges for the Bush program.
I also congratulate the Minister on his efforts with regard to that program, which is universally accepted and very popular. It will include the replacement of the Tulludunna Bridge on the Kamilaroi Highway west of Wee Waa, which is a great initiative; replacement of the Gunnedah Railway Bridge on the Oxley Highway, which is long overdue; and widening of the Bemboka River Bridge on the Snowy Mountains Highway. Roads are vital for country residents and the New South Wales Government is determined to upgrade them. Even in tough times it is important to invest in vital transport infrastructure to help boost economic growth. A strong regional economy is important for a strong New South Wales and ensuring rural industries can get their goods to our international gateways as quickly and as efficiently as possible is vital.
A record $120 million has been provided through the Resources for the Regions program to support economic and social infrastructure projects in mining-affected communities. The Government has reserved $40 million in funding to secure vital water supplies and to assist with droughtproofing regional communities. In addition, $340 million has been provided for the revitalisation of the Newcastle City Centre, including construction of the new Wickham transport interchange, a light rail service and the provision of eight new connections to the harbour. The Government is working hard to ensure that communities in regional New South Wales are looked after because it knows that people live beyond the fringes of Sydney.
The Government has announced tough new rules for coal seam gas activity, including a two-kilometre exclusion zone around residential areas. It has also developed the most stringent coal seam gas mining regulations in the country. Significant changes have been made to the Native Vegetation Act that will allow farmers to get on with the daily management of their farms with supportive expert advice and a minimum of government interference. That work continues as I speak. The creation of Local Land Services puts regional needs in regional hands with the initial opening of 18 one-stop shops across New South Wales in towns such as Dubbo, Lismore, Orange, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Tweed Heads and Wagga Wagga. Regional communities will also benefit from $30 million in new catchment action funding, which is provided to catchment management authorities for programs that underpin biodiversity and sustainable, productive agriculture via community-driven projects.
The Government has allocated $56 million for the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program, which is yet another program that the Labor Government virtually destroyed. It reduced the funding to 23150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
about $10 million, but the program will now receive $56 million to secure long-term potable water supplies. In addition, $14.9 million has been provided for the coastal infrastructure program, which will be spent on infrastructure maintenance at regional harbours that cater for the commercial fishing industry, tourism and recreational boating. The Government has also set aside $388 million for rural and regional transport because it knows that people outside Sydney use and need public transport, and it is investing $5 million in community transport providers. Sticking to the budget is essential. The Liberal-Nationals Government recognises the importance of sticking to the budget. If the previous Labor Government had managed to stick to its budget, New South Wales would be at least $20 billion better off today. If the previous Federal Government had some budgetary skills, Australia may well have been $300 billion better off today.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Pigs may fly.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that pigs may well fly. This budget features slower expense growth, accelerated spending on infrastructure and overall reduction in net debt—all prerequisites for sound financial management that only Coalition governments have been able to deliver in the history of New South Wales and Australia. We expect to have the budget in surplus for 2014-15. This is dependent upon a government that maintains its fiscal responsibility and this can only be done through continual adherence to financial management. This Government understands that the people of New South Wales want security and stability with a vision for the future, and we believe that this budget delivers. We are providing Labor with an example of responsible fiscal management. Hopefully it will learn something—but I doubt it. I commend the Budget to the House and commend the Treasurer and the Cabinet for bringing forward a budget that is steering the people back to the prosperity that we so richly deserve.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [7.02 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
FEDERAL ELECTION 2013
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [7.02 p.m.]: Last Saturday we finally had the chance to have our say on the mismanagement of the previous Labor Government. It was interesting to scroll through some of the results and to compare the swings of various political entities contesting the election. Looking first at the electorate of Calare, the sitting Nationals member increased his vote by 5.56 per cent to nearly 58 per cent of the primary vote. This increase came essentially from the Australian Labor Party, which went down by 3.5 per cent, and The Greens, which went down by 1.84 per cent—a combined total of 5.33 per cent down, close to The Nationals increase of 5.56 per cent. This is the home seat of none other than the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What was The Greens vote?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is a good question. The Greens vote went down by 1.84 per cent. Let us have a look at the Senate vote in Calare. The Greens recorded a vote of only 5 per cent. We know that the Hon. Cate Faehrmann, a former member of this House, was out in Calare, in Orange, campaigning very hard for David Mallard, whose vote went down by 1.84 per cent. In total, they could only manage 5 per cent. Even Clive Palmer got 5 per cent in the Senate in Orange. It was hardly a good result for Jeremy or Cate. Let us now turn to Cowper. I heard Jeremy skiting earlier tonight about how much The Greens' vote went up in Cowper—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: How much did it go up?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The Greens vote went up in Cowper by 3 per cent to a total of 12 per cent. Luke Hartsuyker of The Nationals got 53 per cent of the primary vote, so they did not really get hot after all. The Labor vote went down by 2 per cent and can secure only 25 per cent of the vote in Cowper. That is appalling for the Labor Party. What is happening to these people? Looking at the Senate vote in Cowper, they scored 9 per cent, so the increase in the lower House seat did not transfer across to the Senate. Again, it is hardly a good result. Let us look at the Hunter electorate. There were only two groups of votes that went down in the Hunter: The Greens and Labor. Michael Johnsen from The Nationals increased his vote by 4 per cent and the 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23151
Labor vote went down by 9.5 per cent. The Greens vote went down by 3.3 per cent. This is in the heart of the mining and coal seam gas industries, and Jeremy could not get hot. In the Senate, the Greens captured only 3.87 per cent of the vote. Clive Palmer got more than 6 per cent. Clive Palmer has out-polled Jeremy.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The PUP beat the boy.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The Palmer United Party beat Jeremy. The Greens could only get a miserable 3 per cent in the Senate. In the division of Lyne, the wonderful David Gillespie got 53.57 per cent of the primary vote. Labor got 21.6 per cent of the vote. The Greens came up slightly, but in the Senate The Greens only got 6 per cent of the vote, so they did not get hot there either. New England is particularly important. Of course, Barnaby Joyce claimed 54 per cent of the primary vote, but Labor in New England got 11 per cent. Years ago, in New England, it was always 45 to 55 per cent in favour of The Nationals. These days all Labor could get was 11 per cent.
CHILE COUP D'ÉTAT FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [7.07 p.m.]: September 11, 2013, marks the fortieth anniversary of the coup in Chile, which led to a reign of terror in which tens of thousands of opponents of the military dictatorship of August Pinochet were imprisoned, tortured, exiled and murdered or they disappeared. Salvador Allende, a Chilean physician and politician, became president of Chile through an open election with a clear representative mandate. However, at the height of the Cold War, the United States considered the empowerment of any socialist leader, democratic or otherwise, to be a direct threat to its interests. Throughout the 1960s the United States secretly spent millions funding political parties in Chile, including the Christian Democrats led by Eduardo Frei Montalva, to oppose the Allende Government.
In the early 1970s Washington decided to change tactics and President Nixon authorised a covert action program to promote a military coup to overthrow Allende. As part of this, they undertook a particularly unsophisticated effort to remove army officers who supported democratic rule. The Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] organised to kidnap Rene Schneider, a Chilean army general, but the plot was botched and Schneider died. The United States government claims it did not intend for Schneider to be murdered, only kidnapped. When Alexander Haig, Kissinger's aide, was asked, "Is kidnapping not a crime", he replied, "That depends." United States sentiment opposing the increasingly popular Allende was not only tainted by fears of a Chilean alliance with Cuba and the Soviet Union; Chilean industries were dominated by American corporations at the time and a Central Intelligence Agency report indicated that an Allende win would threaten United States private investment of more than $750 million. It is interesting to note the political mechanisms of Washington. A Central Intelligence Agency document from October 1970 reads:
It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the US government and American hand be well hidden … Some low-level over flights of Santiago and bomb drops in areas not likely to cause casualties could have great psychological effect and might swing balance as they have so many times in past in similar circumstances.
During the air raids and ground attacks that preceded the coup, Allende gave his last speech in which he vowed to stay in the presidential palace, refusing offers for safe passage should he choose exile over confrontation. After the coup the junta established a military dictatorship with support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional, an agency that sensibly coordinated the activities of the intelligence services of the army, navy, air force, the Carabinaros and Investigations Police. Even when the full extent of the torture and executions in Chile were well known—after Pinochet assumed power—the United States Government sought to integrate the Pinochet regime into international business circles.
Notorious use of torture by the Pinochet regime against thousands of militants and civilians, including children, was widespread, and despite these reprehensible abuses of human rights the United States continued to support Pinochet. During the Pinochet regime the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs informed Henry Kissinger that the national stadium was being used to hold tens of thousands of political prisoners, and as late as 1975 the Central Intelligence Agency was still reporting that up to 3,811 prisoners were being held in the stadium. Pinochet was guilty of murdering people in horrific ways, including dropping pregnant women out of aeroplanes.
The Rettig report, commissioned in 1991 by then President Patricio Aylwin, outlined human rights abuses resulting in deaths or disappearances that occurred in Chile between 11 September 1973 and 11 March 1990. It concluded that 2,279 persons who disappeared during the military government were killed for political 23152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
reasons or as a result of political violence. According to a later paper, the Valech report, 31,947 people were tortured. Some 30,000 Chileans were exiled. However, they were followed in their exile by the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional secret police in Operation Condor, which linked South American dictatorships together against political opponents. Pinochet justified his reign of terror, saying:
Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood … Everything I did, all my actions, all of the problems I had I dedicate to God and to Chile, because I kept Chile from becoming Communist.
Juxtaposing Pinochet's grand excuse for the suffering of the Chilean people, Thor Halvorssen, President of the Human Rights Foundation, points out:
Pinochet shut down Parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) … Pinochet's name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex.
CHILE COUP D'ÉTAT FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Dr JOHN KAYE [7.12 p.m.]: Tomorrow around the world Chileans will remember what happened to their lovely country 40 years ago. Friends of social justice and democracy will gather around the world to remember what happened when the tanks rolled through the streets of Santiago, crushing the flower of democracy and resulting in the deaths of at least 2,296 people. There were 1,000 people unaccounted for and 899 others have subsequently been found to have disappeared. There were 27,255 people who were tortured, many of them in circumstances that cannot be spoken about because they are so terrible.
The dead include the wonderful Chilean singer, Victor Jara, students, unionists, activists, members of social organisations and members of political parties. They were tortured and murdered for no reason other than their beliefs. This disease of Chile spread throughout Latin America to Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil. Operation Condor, a United States inspired organisation, which existed throughout the cone of Latin America was responsible for possibly 50,000 murders, 30,000 disappearances and the incarceration of 400,000 people including Orlando Letelier, the former Chilean ambassador to the United States and his assistant Ronni Moffitt, who were assassinated in a 1976 car-bomb attack in Washington.
The events in Chile took an appalling toll on humanity and an unspeakable toll on individuals; they also represented a major attack on democracy. The Chilean army, having been in the barracks for 50 years was brought out of the barracks not just by its own ruling class but also by United States of America President Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, CIA Director Richard Helms and the entire Nixon administration, who conspired to destroy democracy in Chile. Salvador Allende was a country doctor who was elected as the President of Chile in November 1970, at the head of a coalition of six parties—the Unidad Popular—which included socialists, communists, dissident Christian democrats and middle-class progressives. They were united in a view that Chile's natural wealth—basically its copper and its land—could be used to alleviate the poverty in which one-third of the population lived. The Unidad Popular Government was committed to constitutional democracy.
In fact, Allende was criticised from the Left for refusing to depart from the electoral road to socialism. In mid-1971 he reiterated his faith in the armed forces and the police in the belief that they would stand up for the constitution. It turns out that his faith, based on the 50 years of the Chilean military staying out of politics, was tragically misplaced. The Allende Government involved itself in land reform, but it paid for every piece of land that it expropriated and gave to the peasants. The only forced and uncompensated nationalisation was of the copper mines, which turned out to be a tragic decision.
When the Allende Government took on Kennecott Copper Corporation and International Telephone and Telegraph—and, by extension, the United States Government—it is a matter of record that the Nixon Administration and the President himself mounted a determined campaign against the Chilean Government. The United States multinationals such as the International Telephone and Telegraph company and Kennecott Copper pursued more direct forms of aggression designed to subvert the Allende Government. The astonishing International Telephone and Telegraph memos, which are a record of internal communications between its managers at the time show that International Telephone and Telegraph sought to:
… strangle the Chilean economy, sow panic, and foment social disorder in order to encourage and create the opportunity for the armed forces to step in and replace Popular Unity.
Allende's victory had sent Nixon into a rage. On 15 September 1970 President Nixon ordered the Central Intelligence Agency director, Richard Helms, to undertake major efforts to stop Allende's ascension to power 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23153
and to promote a coup in Chile. Nixon approved $10 million, or more if needed, for covert activity. He specified that the CIA's best men were to be assigned to the task. After the coup was over the United States Department of Defense memorandum boasted that Chile's coup d'etat was close to perfect. The loss of democracy in Chile destroyed the rights of the Chilean people to a democracy and it resulted in the murders of tens of thousands of people. Tomorrow, as people remember what happened in New York a decade and a half later, it is important that everybody remembers what happened to democracy in Chile on 11 September 1973.
STATUS OF WOMEN
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [7.17 p.m.]: In July I had the privilege of hosting a series of women's roundtable discussions which sought to get to the heart of the issues that matter to women in New South Wales in 2013. The roundtable discussions brought together over 100 participants who represented women in small business, unions and community organisations. A good State government can do much to assist organisations to advocate for women and improve the quality of life for women in New South Wales. But the O'Farrell Government has cast a shadow over many issues that affect women. One of Mr O'Farrell's first acts as Premier was to relegate the Office for Women's Policy from the central agency of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which has a lot of influence across many portfolio areas, to become a little statistical unit working from the Department of Community Services.
The July roundtables enabled me and Labor colleagues to listen to organisations that represent women from across the State who are worried about the impact of funding cuts on their clients and members. I listened to women worried about the casualisation of front-line jobs in the health industry, education and hospitality, and also about their concerns over insecurity of employment—a common theme in these roundtable discussions. I ran a couple of these roundtable discussions in Bathurst and Port Macquarie where one of the concerns that was mentioned to me was the lack of support for women who run small businesses in the bush.
I listened to women concerned about the impact of TAFE cuts, cuts to TAFE courses and the increase in fees. Many members know that TAFE provides an important pathway for many women who work part time and who need to achieve better qualifications to improve their retirement savings or get promoted. TAFE is also a pathway to university. I met many women who had entered TAFE through entry level courses and were able to move on to university. TAFE was a saviour for many of them. I listened to women express their fear that their entitlements could be challenged when they took maternity leave. Many of us, regardless of political colour, hear that shortage of housing—lack of access and affordability, particularly for older women—is one of the biggest issues.
More baby boomer women retiring with little in the way of savings will impact on government services and the O'Farrell Government has no plans to deal with this issue. The common thread at these meetings was uncertainty. The O'Farrell Government's cuts to services and its reckless industrial relations policies have created a workplace environment in which women feel uncomfortable and unsupported. The biggest issues that came from these 10 women's roundtable meetings were domestic violence and sexual assault, and lack of support services, again particularly in Western Sydney and the bush. I heard story after story of desperation at what these women must go through to get some services. Many women and their families are being turned away. This should not be happening, particularly after this Government initiated a domestic violence inquiry.
The Government is not funding many of the inquiry's recommendations. Domestic violence cannot be dismissed as only a women's issue. It is up to this Government and the community to deal with this important issue. The Government has to take it seriously and invest in programs that assist victims and promote awareness among potential perpetrators. Women's issues cannot be treated as stand-alone matters; they impact all areas of government. Policies to address disadvantage must be incorporated into all departments and decisions. A good Government brings people together to talk about issues directly affecting them. The women's roundtable discussions sought to do that and that is what I seek to do as shadow Minister for the Status of Women. I thank the women's organisations who took part in the roundtables in Port Macquarie, Maitland, Central Coast, Sydney, Mount Druitt and Bathurst, as well as the numerous other organisations that took part. Women belong at the heart of government. Under the O'Farrell Government their voices are absent.
DADS4KIDS FATHERHOOD FOUNDATION
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [7.22 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation formed by Warwick and Alison Marsh. The Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation website states that it aims to 23154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2013
build one of the best fatherhood websites in the world. It aims to empower fathers to become better dads and provide research to improve public policy. Its stated vision is to encourage fathers, empower families and help children. The mission of the Fatherhood Foundation is to improve the wellbeing of children by increasing the proportion of children growing up with involved, responsible, committed and loving fathers.
Its strategy intends to educate and inspire all people—especially fathers—through electronic media, awareness campaigns, mentoring courses, research and other resources. A further part of that strategy is to equip and develop leaders of national, State and community fathering initiatives through forums, conferences, festivals, mentoring courses, curricula, training and technical assistance. It aims also to engage every sector of society through strategic alliances and partnerships. Its stated value is to achieve all these things in a true spirit of integrity and humility while remaining open and accountable all times. The Dads4Kids website defines fatherlessness as:
[the] absence of an active, positive father-influence in the lives of children. Fatherlessness is both a natural and spiritual problem. It needs strategic and synergistic partnerships that should involve Government, business, church, community, faith-based charities and secular charities and many others working together to strengthen and support Australian fathers.
Social science research has shown that the cost of fatherlessness and its associated harms is very high in emotional, physical and monetary terms. The lack of an involved, protective, committed, responsible and loving father has been shown to contribute to an increase in child poverty, child sexual abuse, child emotional abuse, child physical abuse, child and adult drug abuse, child and adult suicide, child and adult self-harm, and much other destructive and abusive human behaviour. The Fatherhood Foundation has had a number of achievements including introducing the publishing of the Fatherlessness Fact Sheet through Bill Muehlenberg of the Australian Family Association. The Fatherlessness Fact Sheet has become a media and parliamentary resource sheet used by politicians of all political parties. It has now been updated and revised four times and has become Australia's most broadly circulated fact sheet on fathering.
The Fatherhood Foundation research document on Fatherlessness and the 12-point plan were used by Andrew Evans, leader of the Family First Party in the South Australian upper House, when he moved his historic motion for an inquiry into the status of fathers. This motion subsequently was passed by all members of the upper House—Labor, Liberal, Democrats and Independents, including Family First. This was the first inquiry of its kind held anywhere in Australia and became another milestone in the restoration of fatherhood. It is significant to note that the vote for this inquiry was unanimous across party lines. In August 2002 the Fatherhood Foundation launched the "My Dad" media campaign. Three community service announcements featuring children talking about their dads were broadcast on over 26 commercial television stations across Australia, including Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 and regional networks. On Father's Day 1 September 2002 the Fatherhood Foundation launched its free weekly email fatherhood encouragement called "fathersonline". Reception for fathersonline has been excellent and the subscriber list has grown exponentially.
The intensive eight week training "Good to Great Fatherhood Mentoring Course for the Twenty-First Century" was supported by local councils and community and church organisations. It featured some of the best speakers on fatherhood in Australia—for example, Dr Bruce Robinson, author of Fathering from the Fast Lane, and Western Australian Brigadier Jim Wallace, a previous commander of Australia's Special Air Service. The course gave foundational information and skills to assist men to better understand and prioritise their relationships as fathers and husbands. In summary, the Fatherhood Foundation is committed to the restoration of fatherhood in Australia. Australian fathers can be fathers of excellence. This will mean moving from being just good fathers to being great fathers. Father's Day recently passed and I shall conclude by saying: fathers are forgiven, not necessarily perfect.
FEDERAL ELECTION 2013
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.27 p.m.]: Tonight I too cannot resist the temptation to reflect on the events of the weekend. Indeed, the result was great for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition with six, possibly seven, seats won by the Liberal Party and three seats won by The Nationals in New South Wales. The Coalition delivered in spades in New South Wales. We are on track to win another nine seats, possibly 10—the largest State contribution to the Coalition's magnificent Federal election win on Saturday night. Let us start with the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro—a seat for which a large 4.2 per cent swing was needed to change hands. I can inform the House that in Eden-Monaro the Liberal Party candidate, Peter Hendy, is currently 467 votes ahead of the incumbent Australian Labor Party member, Mike Kelly. This represents a 4.6 per cent swing. Congratulations to Peter on such a strong result against a high-profile and formidable adversary with a swing well above the national average
This was one of the true standout performances of the Federal campaign in one of the toughest seats. One should never underestimate the power of the bellwether or the commitment and dedication of a local 10 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23155
campaign team. Congratulations must go to Andy Heath, campaign director, and to all of his wonderful team who worked tirelessly to return the light on the hill to Eden-Monaro. Long may it shine. Indeed, the Federal election uncovered an embarrassment of political riches in New South Wales for the Coalition. We saw the triumphant return of Russell Matheson in the once-marginal seat of Macarthur with a massive 8.43 per cent swing to him—one of the largest in the State. Congratulations to Russell and his superb campaign team led by Belinda Rowell and Michael Shaw. In the neighbouring seat of Hume, the much-revered retiring member, Alby Schultz, was replaced by the young and dynamic Angus Taylor with a 61.44 per cent two party preferred result. Congratulations to Angus and his hardworking campaign team and all the best to Alby and his wonderful wife, Glo, on their retirement. Our thoughts and prayers are with Alby at this time because he is not very well.
As we head north we reach the swinging seat of Lindsay and the scalp of David Bradbury, who had hoped to emulate his namesake of 2002 Winter Olympics fame, Steven Bradbury, in a come-from-behind win. However, Fiona Scott was not for falling over; she delivered a 3.9 per cent swing for a richly deserved win on the night. Congratulations to Fiona. Similarly, Craig Laundy secured victory in Reid with a 3.13 per cent swing, and David Coleman secured the seat of Banks with a 3.4 per cent swing. Close by, the result in Barton is still in the balance with Nick Varvaris behind by only 68 votes before the counting of postal votes. We are hopeful that we will add Barton to our political war chest in the coming days.
As we move further north we eventually reach the discerning voters of the Central Coast seats of Robertson and Dobell. Congratulations to Lucy Wicks who secured Robertson with a 3.51 per cent swing and Karen McNamara who secured Dobell with a very impressive 5.73 per cent swing. The people of the Central Coast will be rewarded with an enthusiastic new group of members of Parliament. This success brings to a close a very dark chapter for the Labor Party and finally sets Craig Thomson free from the yoke of the Australian Labor Party to face serious fraud charges for his alleged appalling conduct.
Further north we travel into The Nationals heartland, which saw the recapture of the seats of Lyne, New England and Page. Congratulations to David Gillespie, Barnaby Joyce and Kevin Hogan respectively for their excellent wins. We hope that will forever end the scourge of the independents in country New South Wales. Can it get any better? Yes it can. Three Coalition Senators were returned in New South Wales—Marise Payne, John Williams and Arthur Sinodinos. Congratulations to them one and all.
But wait, there is more. No Greens Senator was returned for New South Wales. Sadly, Cate Faehrmann failed in her quest to move from this House to the Senate. The champagne corks of the North Korean Greens faction opposite are popping. We had all hoped that Lee Rhiannon would suffer this political fate back in 2010, but, sadly, on that occasion there was no justice. Notwithstanding that, we on this side of the Chamber are much comforted by the fact that the Federal Parliament will be a better place with one less Greens representative from New South Wales. I cannot put it any better than the Prime Minister-elect, the Hon. Tony Abbott, put it on Saturday night when he so emphatically accepted victory on behalf of the Coalition. He said:
From today I declare Australia is under new management and is once more open for business.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m. until Wednesday 11 September 2013 at 11.00 a.m.