7773
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Friday 16 May 2008 ______
The Speaker (The Hon. Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
ADMISSION OF THE TREASURER INTO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its Message dated 14 May 2008 for the Honourable Michael Costa, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter, to attend the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 3 June 2008 at 12 noon to give a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the New South Wales Budget 2008/2009.
Legislative Council AMANDA FAZIO 15 May 2008 Deputy-President
PORT MACQUARIE-HASTINGS COUNCIL ELECTION BILL 2008
Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.
Agreement in Principle
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition supports the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Election Bill introduced in the Legislative Council by the Hon. Robert Brown. Pursuant to a proclamation dated 26 February 2008, an administrator was appointed for the local government area of Port Macquarie-Hastings. The administrator's term of office commenced from that day and will cease on the date of the declaration of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council's election, to be held in conjunction with the ordinary council elections on the second Saturday in September 2012. The object of this bill is to ensure that a fresh council election is held for the local government area of Port Macquarie-Hastings in conjunction with the next ordinary election of councillors in accordance with section 287 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993. Under that section the next ordinary election of councillors is to be held on the second Saturday in September 2008, that is 13 September 2008.
Under the provisions of the bill the administrator will cease to hold office immediately before the first meeting of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council held after fresh council elections, unless the administrator ceases to hold office under the Local Government Act 1993 before that time. This bill is simple and its object is simple: it will ensure that local government elections are held in Port Macquarie-Hastings this year on 13 September 2008 rather than on the second Saturday in September 2012, as set out in the proclamation made by the Minister for Local Government that resulted in the removal of the council from office and the appointment of an administrator, Mr Dick Persson, to act in its stead. The bill has been debated in the Legislative Council and I will not go over all those issues. By clear majority the Legislative Council determined that it was appropriate that local government elections be held in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council area this year rather than in 2012 and that determination is now before this House for its approval.
The Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area has been well represented by its council over a period of time. The issue that led to the council's removal from office related to overexpenditure on a cultural centre called the Glasshouse. There was no allegation that the council or council officers had engaged in corruption or any mischievous conduct. The only issue was the blow-out in expenditure for the cultural centre. For this Government, of all governments, to take action against another layer of government because of cost blow-outs is the height of hypocrisy. We have witnessed the costs for the desalination plant at Kurnell go from 7774 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
$1.3 billion to $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion and they are still rising, yet there is no suggestion that the Premier, who was the instigator of the desalination plant, or the Minister for Water will be removed from office.
We have seen the costs of the Chatswood to Epping railway blow-out by more than $1.5 billion, yet there is no suggestion that the Minister for Transport or the Premier will be removed from office. We have had the massive cost overruns at Bathurst and Orange hospitals, but there is no suggestion that the Minister for Health will be removed from office. Yet, not only was this council removed from office and an administrator, Mr Dick Persson—presently the administrator of Warringah Council—appointed to act in the council's stead, but also the people of the Port Macquarie-Hastings area are to be denied a voice in local government for 4½ years. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council is distinct from other councils that have had action taken against them by the Minister for Local Government because in those cases there have been quite serious allegations of corruption and that corruption has caused systemic mismanagement that must be corrected throughout the council structure, both so far as councillors and council staff are concerned.
Of course, Wollongong City Council is the one that the whole community is familiar with, where a Labor-dominated council was rorted, and rorted systematically from the top to the bottom, by corrupt Labor Party councillors, corrupt Labor Party aides and corrupt Labor Party apparatchiks. There is no suggestion that this happened at Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, because it does not have Labor Party councillors. If a council does not have Labor Party representation, it is 90 per cent sure of being corruption free. Just as Liverpool council was dismissed and just as Wollongong council was dismissed, it is appropriate that an administrator be appointed and that there be a total renewal, a total revamping, of local government in those areas to eliminate the pernicious influence of Labor Party secret deals and Labor Party-endorsed corruption.
Ms Virginia Judge: Point of order: Standing Order 76 provides that the member speaking shall be relevant to the subject matter of the debate. I ask the member for Terrigal to remain within the ambit of the bill.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal will confine his remarks to the leave of the bill.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: He is. He is talking about councils, elections and corruption in councils and why councils are dismissed. It just so happens that Labor Party councils are often dismissed for corruption. If the member for Strathfield is sensitive about the issue she can respond to my comments. The Australian Labor Party has a record of local government corruption and mismanagement unparalleled in the history of this State. This is not a debate about the entire Labor Party because the entire Labor Party stands indicted and its members know that the sword of Damocles hangs over their heads. Which one of them does not now have an inquiry into his or her activities? Will members who are not under investigation please raise their hands? The member for Wollongong raises her hand!
The people of Port Macquarie are entitled to pass judgement on their councillors. They are entitled to decide whether their councillors have acted wrongly and should be held to account through the ordinary process of local government elections, due to be held on 13 September 2008. If councillors at Port Macquarie have acted wrongly, the people of Port Macquarie will hold them to account. If the people of Port Macquarie feel that they should be reprimanded, they can impose that reprimand. The Minister has adduced no reason why the people of Port Macquarie should be denied local government representation until 2012. The concept of democracy flows through at every level of governance in this country—it applies in local government as much as it applies in State Government.
If the State Government is found to be corrupt and guilty of mismanagement, then the people of New South Wales are the appropriate vehicle to remove the Government from office, not some higher authority. Even though the Australian Labor Party screamed about the action taken by Sir John Kerr in 1975, an election was called within one month so that the people could pass judgement on the Government. There are no allegations of corruption against Port Macquarie council, merely a single allegation of mismanagement of a cultural centre's costing; yet for 4½ years the people of the Port Macquarie area will not have the right to pass judgement on their councillors or be represented by their elected representatives. The New South Wales Coalition stands by the people of Port Macquarie. We believe they are entitled to democracy and, accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Virginia Judge and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7775
ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATIONS OWNERSHIP (PARLIAMENTARY POWERS) BILL 2008
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Andrew Stoner.
Agreement in Principle
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.14 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
I am delighted to introduce the Energy Services Corporations Ownership (Parliamentary Powers) Bill 2008 and move that it be agreed to in principle. The Hon. John Kaye also introduced this bill in the upper House. One might say that we are strange bedfellows but when it comes to democracy, openness, transparency, proper debate and ensuring that issues of such import are properly considered, we are happy to side with members of any variety, particularly in opposition to the Labor Party's plan to privatise electricity. The bill is necessary because, prior to the election last year, the Premier stated on a number of occasions that he had no plans to privatise the electricity sector in New South Wales.
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: He's a liar.
Mr ANDREW STONER: As the member for Burrinjuck says, that was clearly a misleading statement from the Premier. The Government hid this policy to ensure that it won the election, and as soon as that was out of the way the Premier embarked on this plan to flog off electricity assets.
Mr Robert Coombs: So did the Liberal Party.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The Liberals and Nationals had a clear set of policies in the last election and electricity privatisation was not among them. We had the courage to take it to the people in 1999, but Premier Iemma and the Labor Party did not have such courage. As the plan progressed, the Premier's view was that it was not only possible but also desirable to proceed without legislation to enable the sale and/or lease of the State's electricity assets. On a number of occasions the Premier and the Treasurer, Michael Costa, made it clear that it was not their intention to debate the issue in Parliament. Only legislation dealing with some of the conditions of the sale, for example, price regulation, worker entitlements, et cetera, would be introduced.
The Government's clear intention has been not only to mislead the wider public but also to avoid any form of debate in the Legislative Assembly—the people's House. Every resident of New South Wales without exception would agree that was not the proper process. Every resident would like a say. We live in a democracy, which is why we have a parliament in this State. However, the Labor Party, true to form, has sought to subvert our principles of democracy, openness, transparency and debate. Therefore, the Hon. John Kaye and I have been forced to introduce a bill to ensure that the democratic processes take place. Yesterday, as a result of the efforts of the Opposition and the Greens in the other place, we witnessed a day of high dudgeon. Members of the Labor Party were running all over the place like chooks with their heads chopped off. Suddenly, the Premier gave notice that he would introduce a bill to deal with electricity privatisation.
Mr Thomas George: A bill?
Mr ANDREW STONER: He gave notice of legislation, whereas his stated position had been that no legislation would be introduced. This event followed the very courageous stance taken by two left-wing members of the Labor Party in the other place. For a nanosecond I respected the left wing of the Labor Party because at least its members have principles.
Ms Carmel Tebbutt: They don't respect you.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I know you do, Carmel. You are a lady of principle, as is the left wing. Two members of the left wing—the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Ian West—stood up to the abuse of democracy, and the bullying tactics and the backroom deals done by members of the Right, including the Premier, the Treasurer, John Della Bosca and Eddie Obeid. I congratulate them on their stance. 7776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Ms Virginia Judge: Point of order: The member has breached Standing Order 76, which relates to members' speeches shall be relevant, and Standing Order 73, which relates to imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members of the House. The Leader of The Nationals has been in the House for long enough to know—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Leader of The Nationals to continue. He is within the leave of the bill.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Nice try by the member for Strathfield! Government members do not like to hear that members of their party have principle and stand up for democratic issues. We call the Hon. Lynda Voltz "240"—"Power to her", we say. She stood up, but what happened? She was treated absolutely appallingly by the usual suspects—the deal makers, the head kickers, the apparatchiks and the bullies in the Labor Party. It was just disgusting. Yesterday, as a result of that courageous stance, a sudden and extraordinary meeting of the left wing of the Labor Party took place. There was a mini-caucus happening. Yesterday there was revolt about to happen. Labor members covered it up pretty well, but we seasoned observers know what went on, as did the media. And guess what happened during question time? The Premier came in with sham, counterfeit legislation, which he tabled.
The Opposition checked the legislation—it has no status whatsoever. It is not a bill, it is not legislation, and it cannot be debated. We had a hard time obtaining a copy of it because the staff of the Parliament simply did not know what it was. The Parliamentary Counsel could not confirm whether it was legislation. It was not an exposure draft, it was not a bill, so what was it? The best metaphor for it is a cardboard battleship launched to avert a revolt from the left to buy the Premier, Morris Iemma, sufficient time to jump on a plane to China, so off he went. The Premier has dudded all other Labor members, and that is the shame of it. He not only misled the public and the media, but also misled members of his own party. That is a disgrace.
I thought about whether to proceed with the Opposition's bill to try to keep Morris Iemma and the other deal makers in the Labor Party honest, given that there was some sort of intention of a bill. I decided to proceed because the Government's tabled bill has no status. We do not know if the Government's bill will be read a second time when the Parliament resumes, and we do not know, if the bill is introduced, whether it will be presented in its final form. Indeed, we do not know whether there will be a bill at all.
Mr Alan Ashton: Stay tuned!
Mr ANDREW STONER: Stay tuned? Is the member for East Hills in on the deal? The reason the Opposition is proceeding with the bill is that it supports an important principle. It will ensure that the public has some say and that the public interest is protected. Without proper debate we will see bungled, mismanaged deals, as has occurred time after time at the hands of the Government. I have spoken already in this place about the Cross City Tunnel, the Tcard, the Millennium train, all of which were hopeless and mismanaged. If the Government goes ahead without debate and without the proper safeguards on the deal they are hell-bent on doing, we will end up with another dud deal and the public's interest will be sold out, as it was, for example, with the Lane Cove Tunnel—vale Epping Road—and the Cross City Tunnel. The Government will sell out public roads to get the deal through and the public will be dudded. The Opposition will persist with debate on the bill before the House to force this Government to at least give lip-service to the principles of democracy in this State.
I have had a cursory glance at whatever that bunch of papers was that the Premier dumped on the table during question time yesterday. I have to say that as a proposal for a bill, it falls very short of the mark. It does not meet the conditions that have been put forward by the Coalition, particularly regarding inclusion of the Auditor-General's involvement in the process right from the start to make sure that the deal stacks up when it comes to public interest. All this week during question time in Parliament the Premier dodged, weaved and danced around because he does not want the Auditor-General in on the deal. He wants only the head kickers, apparatchiks and his union mates in on the deal. That is the deal he wants done, and it is not a deal that is in the interests of the public of New South Wales. That bunch of paper, that counterfeit bill, falls short of the mark. I indicate to the Premier right now: If that is the best he can do, he should not expect to receive support from the Opposition.
I mentioned the day of high dudgeon that occurred yesterday. The scenario has been playing out for a long time. I know that members opposite—a few principled ones—are very uncomfortable about all of this. Members of the Labor Party have not known which way to turn and there has been much flipping and flopping. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7777
For example, the member for Bathurst has been acting like a hero in his electorate, but in the Parliament he has been wimping out. Back in his electorate he is saying, "I am not the only one in caucus who feels that way. We've got a major dilemma". I do not think he was referring to Morris.
Ms Virginia Judge: With respect, I would have thought the Leader of The Nationals—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Is the member taking a point of order?
Ms Virginia Judge: Yes, and I again cite Standing Orders 73 and 76. The member has been in this House long enough to know. He is trying to make out that members of Parliament have improper motives.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am listening carefully to the member. He is not straying from the leave of the bill at this stage.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Another nice try by the member for Strathfield! She feels very uncomfortable about this issue, which is why she is taking spurious points of order. But we should not stop debate. We should not gag debate on this bill. Members of the public want this legislation aired and open, and they would like to see a stand taken on principle by Government members.
Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Well they don't see much from your side.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Carmel, you are becoming bitter, now that you are on the backbench. We want you back on the frontbench. The member for Blacktown said, "If a Premier of any State has to go to a national executive to get something through in his own State then he becomes a lame duck premier". He went on to say, "I belong to the Labor Party. I don't belong to the Morris Iemma-Michael Costa party". Good on him! Good on "Gibbo" for having principles and standing up to be counted, just like two members in the other place who put principle first and their parliamentary careers second and who will go down in history as having the proper motives—as opposed to, as Paul Gibson put it, the Morris Iemma-Michael Costa party. The member for The Entrance said recently:
My question is this: I would say does anyone really believe—can you show me someone who will tell you that privatisation of anything in Australia—be it Telstra, be it the banks, be it the NRMA, be it the GIO, be it the State Bank, be it Junee jail—has led to cheaper prices, better services for working families in Australia?
Good on the member for The Entrance who voiced those concerns. He went on to say, "I don't want to roll the Premier, but I will be voting in accordance with the decision that has been made by the conference". Them's fightin' words! The votes at the State Labor Conference were 700 against 100, so we know how Grant McBride will be voting on this bill. The member for East Hills, who has been bouncing around, quite cocky—
Mr Alan Ashton: I would like to know where you got these quotes from.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Well, you guys said them.
Mr Alan Ashton: Not necessarily.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The statement by the member for East Hills was that electricity privatisation was the Iemma Government's WorkChoices.
Mr Alan Ashton: Where did you get that from?
Mr ANDREW STONER: From you! It is no wonder the signs are up on the poles again.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: I would like to know where the Leader of The Nationals claims to have obtained those quotes.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals has the call.
Mr Alan Ashton: Well, it is a good question.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Nice try from the member for East Hills—you will get your opportunity to question us during question time after 2011. But if he wants to contribute to the debate, of course he can. 7778 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Mr Alan Ashton: Time is going to beat you. It is 10.30.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Nearly. The member for Cessnock said:
My constituency does not want this sale or leasing of the power generators. Up to 85 per cent of my community is opposed to it.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: I draw your attention to the time: it is 10.30 a.m.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals can speak for another 30 seconds.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I know members opposite do not want to hear this. They are feeling very sensitive and are squirming in their seats. The answer is easy: Put principle first, support the bill, and support your position in relation to the issue overall.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given, by leave.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) AMENDMENT (BODY PIERCING AND TATTOOING) BILL 2008
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Kevin Greene.
Agreement in Principle
Mr KEVIN GREENE (Oatley—Minister for Community Services) [10.31 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Body Piercing and Tattooing) Bill will amend the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to prohibit body piercing of children in certain circumstances and to prohibit certain tattooing procedures. The bill will introduce a requirement of parental consent for all non-intimate body piercing of children under the age of 16 years. The provision requires this consent to be written by the parent of a child or for the parent to give consent in person before a non-intimate body piercing can be performed. In giving their consent, a parent will need to specify the part of their child's body to be pierced. The bill also will legislate for a blanket ban on all intimate body piercing of children. With or without parental consent, intimate body piercing will be outlawed in New South Wales for anyone under the age of 16 years.
For the benefit of members who are unfamiliar with the terminology, intimate body piercing refers to the piercing of the nipples or genitals in both men and women. Non-intimate sites are all other sites, including ear, brow, nose, lip, navel, tongue and the back of the neck. Finally, the bill also will insert a definition of tattooing into section 230 of the Act to expand the circumstances in which it is an offence to tattoo a child or young person to include procedures such as beading, branding and scarification. For the information of members, I point out that beading refers to leaving a scar after the cutting of the skin of a person and the insertion of an object beneath the skin to produce a lump; branding refers to the application of heat to the skin of a person to produce scar tissue; and scarification refers to the cutting of the skin of a person to create scar tissue.
The popularity of body piercing, especially unusual piercing, appears to be a growing trend, so the introduction of this legislation is timely. The primary motivations for amendments to the Act in relation to body piercing of children are twofold. The first major motivating factor for this legislation is the affirmation of the rights of parents to be involved in decision making in relation to the care and protection of their children. An important part of good parenting is providing children with the knowledge and skills to make good choices. To do this, parents need the opportunity to be actively involved in the decision-making processes that affect the safety and wellbeing of their children.
The legislative amendments, firstly, will provide parents with greater involvement and insight to help them guide their children by using the following tools: an awareness of their child's desire to undertake a 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7779
piercing; the opportunity to discuss this desire; the opportunity to explore the possible risks of piercing; the opportunity to attend with the child and ensure the body piercing practitioner is following the prescribed regulations in relation to body piercing; and, importantly, the opportunity to support the child through the procedure and ensure that after-care is undertaken to minimise any risk of infection. The requirement for parental consent also removes the often overwhelming force of peer pressure, which may be a factor in piercings. Where peer pressure is a factor, children are even less likely to make an informed decision.
Secondly, the bill is motivated by a desire for the greater protection of the wellbeing of children living in New South Wales. All piercing carries the possibility of the risk of infection. In most cases the risks are relatively low and, when infection occurs, it is easily treatable. However, in a minor number of cases, the consequences are potentially serious. This legislation when enacted will enable the Government, in partnership with parents, to better protect the wellbeing of their children and better prevent the potential health risks associated with body piercing. This bill of course is supported by the New South Wales Department of Health's Skin Penetration Code of Best Practice, which sets out guidelines for skin penetration procedures, including tattooing and body piercing. I encourage parents to access the guidelines through NSW Health's website, should they wish to better understand safe practice in relation to piercing.
As I outlined earlier, intimate body piercing involves the piercing of the nipples or genitalia in both men and women. The health risks that carries may be particularly severe. Further, the intimate body piercing of a child places that child in a vulnerable position. I would find it very difficult to believe that a member of this House would argue against the importance of this legislation in the prevention of sometimes serious and possibly life-long risks to our children's health and wellbeing. Queensland already has enacted legislation to outlaw the intimate body piercing of children. It is my strong desire that New South Wales follows suit. The Government is aware that non-intimate body piercing of children is a longstanding practice in Australia and a widely accepted cultural and/or religious practice of adornment. This legislation will not impede this practice where piercings are culturally or religiously-based, as parents will have the option to provide consent in such cases. A parent will still be able to have a young girl's ear lobes pierced to permit earrings being inserted.
Significant attention has been given to the appropriate age limit at which children should no longer be required to seek the permission of their parents in relation to body piercing. A number of factors informed the final decision of 16 years. These include: broad community acceptance of mainstream body piercing; consistency with existing child protection law which recognises the greater independence of young people, that is those between the ages of 16 and 18 years; and other liberties currently available to young people, including the right to leave school, to enter the workforce and, quite possibly, to live independently. Consistent with the philosophy of the Act as a whole, the amendments give parents the backing of the law in negotiating these issues with their children.
The new offence of performing intimate body piercing on a child will reflect the seriousness of the offence and will carry a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units, which currently amounts to $22,000. The proposed offence for performing non-intimate body piercing on a child without parental consent will carry a maximum penalty of 30 penalty units, or $3,300. These differentiated penalties recognise that the proposed offences differ fundamentally. Imposing a significantly higher penalty for intimate body piercing recognises the relatively greater potential for abuse involved. It accords also with the protection that the law affords children against abuse by adults. It is consistent with the existing penalty for the permanent disfigurement of tattooing.
The relatively lesser penalty attached to non-intimate body piercing recognises the inappropriateness of imposing the same penalty for intimate and non-intimate body piercing offences involving children. Importantly, the prohibition will not apply where body piercing is necessary in the course of medical treatment. This would include procedures undertaken by midwives, nurses and paramedics for medical purposes—for example, body piercing that results from the stitching of a wound and health care related therapeutic treatments, including acupuncture. The bill will also amend section 230 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act to ensure that tattoo-like procedures that make a permanent mark on the body of a child or young person—such as beading, scarification and branding—are prohibited without parental consent.
The bill has been drawn in an inclusive fashion so that if new fads develop that involve leaving a permanent mark on a child's skin, these too will be caught. These tattoo-like procedures will carry the same maximum penalty of 200 units that currently applies to performing tattooing on a child or young person without parental consent. Only last month I received a letter from a mother who was appalled at the scarification of her 17-year-old daughter, which had occurred without the mother's consent. The operator had charged the young woman $460 for this procedure, which involved using a scalpel to scar the young woman's abdomen. Quite apart from the health risks involved, it is difficult to imagine that young people who undergo such a procedure might not look back on it with regret.
7780 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Some tattooing and piercing operators already have their own policies in place to require parental consent for these types of procedures, and they are to be congratulated. This bill will enshrine that good practice in legislation and will provide protection to children and young people against less scrupulous operators. I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in the development and construction of the bill, which will result in Government and parents working together to better protect the health and wellbeing of our children in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
HUMAN TISSUE AMENDMENT (CHILDREN IN CARE OF STATE) BILL 2008
Bill introduced on motion by Ms Noreen Hay, on behalf of Ms Reba Meagher.
Agreement in Principle
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.42 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
I am pleased to bring before the House the Human Tissue Amendment (Children in Care of State) Bill 2008. As members would be aware, this legislation arose from a tragic incident in February 2007 when a young girl who was in the care of the Minister for Community Services died following a motor vehicle accident. During her life this girl had expressed a wish to be an organ donor and all the significant adults in her life—her birth parents, stepfather and foster parents—agreed with that wish and that her organs should be donated to assist others. Unfortunately, the Human Tissue Act currently includes a blanket prohibition on the donation of organs and tissues by children who are in the care of the State. The bill removes this restriction and will allow for the organs of children who are in the care of the State to be donated for transplantation into the body of another person in a manner similar to that applying to all other children.
Part 4 of the Human Tissue Act 1983 currently allows for a child's organs to be donated in circumstances where the child during his or her lifetime has not expressed an objection to donation and the child's senior available next of kin gives consent. The proposed amendments to the Act will allow the organs of a child in the care of the State to be donated if the child during his or her lifetime has not expressed an objection to donation and the principal care officer for the child gives his or her consent. The principal care officer will be required to consult with relevant interested parties before giving his or her consent. The principal care officer will also be precluded from giving consent if any of the relevant interested parties do not agree to the donation. In other words, each and every person who is a relevant interested party will have the power to veto a donation.
As members will be aware, the family situations of children who come to be in the care of the State can be extremely complex. A wide range of people can have played an important role in these children's lives and have strong concerns for their welfare. These people can include birth parents, grandparents, foster parents, and brothers and sisters, and in the case of indigenous children may also include community elders. I do not wish, however, to give the impression that those examples are in any way exhaustive. It is inevitable that there will be situations where people who are not covered by these examples are people that the child would have expected and wanted to be consulted. Accordingly, the legislation does not seek to define who is a relevant interested party. However, I give an undertaking to the House that the Children's Guardian will develop guidelines to assist principal care officers in determining who is a relevant interested party and in consulting with those parties. I expect that the Children's Guardian will consult widely in developing those guidelines.
As well as requiring consent from the principal care officer, the bill maintains the usual role of the designated officer in approving organ donations. As members may be aware, hospitals involved in organ donations appoint a designated officer who must authorise the removal of any organs or tissues from the body of a dead person. In effect, the designated officer is an independent authority who ensures that all the legal and procedural requirements have been complied with. As a final matter, members will be aware that any death of a child in the care of the State must be referred to the Coroner. Accordingly, the Coroner's permission will be required before any organs can be removed from the body of such a child.
Item [1] of schedule 1, "Amendments", inserts in the definitions section of the Act the definitions of child "in the care of the State" and "principal care officer". The definition of a child "in the care of the State" has 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7781
simply been moved from section 34A of the Act, which is to be repealed by item [8] of schedule 1. The definition of "principal care officer" provides that this person is the principal officer of the designated agency that has supervisory responsibility for the child under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act. Designated agencies include the Department of Community Services or a non-government organisation that is accredited to provide out-of-home care services for children and young people in the statutory care of the State. This definition has been developed in consultation with the Department of Community Services.
Items [2] and [3] of schedule 1 establish a new structure for obtaining consent for the donation of tissue by a child in the care of the State where the child's body is at a hospital. The role of the hospital's designated officer has been retained and, as far as possible, the procedures to be followed by the hospital for collecting tissue from the body of a child who was in the care of the State will be the same as those for other children. Items [4] and [5] of schedule 1 relate to obtaining consent for the donation of tissue by a child in the care of the State where the child's body is not at a hospital. The role of the principal care officer is essentially the same in this instance as it is when the child's body is at a hospital. Members will note that the proposed amendments items [3], [5] and [7] make it clear that in all cases any tissue that is taken from the body of a child in the care of the State may be used only for the purpose of transplantation into the body of another living person.
In other words, tissues cannot be donated for medical or scientific research. Item [10] is a transitional provision that clarifies that the proposed amendments have no retrospective effect and will apply only in the case of deaths that occur after the amendments commence. On the subject of commencements, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the proposed amendments are to commence by proclamation. This will allow the Children's Guardian to consult all interested stakeholders and to develop appropriate guidelines for the exercise of the functions of principal care officers. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
FIRST STATE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Michael Daley, on behalf of Mr John Watkins.
Agreement in Principle
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.50 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The First State Superannuation Amendment Bill 2008 introduces amendments to the First State Superannuation Act 1992. This Act governs superannuation arrangements for New South Wales public sector employees recruited since December 1992. Employers generally are required under the Act to make superannuation contributions of 9 per cent of salary to these employees. The bill will not affect most employees under the Act; their superannuation contributions will be paid by their employer just as before. The bill applies to some members of two groups of employees only if their employment is prescribed in the regulations. The first group is one-off short-term employees earning less than a specified amount in a particular month. The second group is employees over the age of 70. The bill addresses the concerns of these employees by allowing the payment of the 9 per cent amount to some of them as an additional part of salary, rather than as a contribution to superannuation.
With respect to one-off short-term employees, employers under the First State Superannuation Act generally are required to make superannuation contributions for every dollar earned by the employee. In contrast, the Commonwealth superannuation guarantee legislation requires that employers make superannuation contributions only for their employees earning $450 or more in that month. The bill targets the concerns of some staff, such as those engaged on a one-off basis—for example, at State elections. Some staff have raised the issue of the undue red tape involved and the erosion of the small amount of superannuation received by fund fees and premiums. I am sure members will join me in acknowledging that we have one of the most efficient and transparent electoral systems in the world. I am sure members will join me also in acknowledging the enormous effort of some 19,000 paid polling day staff at the last State elections, many of whom were either retirees or students. Most of them received a superannuation contribution for that employment of about $30.
The New South Wales Electoral Commission encountered significant administrative problems and costs in making these payments as superannuation contributions. Polling staff also suggested to the Government 7782 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
that it would be better if the 9 per cent amount was paid to them as salary. The bill therefore allows payment of the 9 per cent contribution amount as an additional amount of salary rather than as a contribution to superannuation, if the employment is prescribed in the regulations. The bill restricts such payments to where the employee's complete salary or wages for that employment, inclusive of the additional 9 per cent amount, is less than $450 in that month. This is to ensure compatibility with the Commonwealth's superannuation guarantee legislation, which requires employers to make a superannuation contribution if the employee's salary or wages is $450 or more in a month.
I now turn to arrangements for employees over the age of 70. Alternative payment arrangements are needed because Commonwealth superannuation regulation prevents superannuation funds from accepting employer contributions on behalf of employees over the age of 70, except in special circumstances. To maintain equity for employees aged over 70, the Iemma Government has a longstanding policy requiring public service employers to pay the 9 per cent contribution amount as an additional part of salary.
The bill recognises the increasing number of workers over the age of 70—whom we want to, and will, look after. It allows the Iemma Government to extend its policy to employees under the Act who are over the age of 70. A regulation may provide that they receive the 9 per cent amount as salary. This bill will not affect most employees under the Act. It allows payments to employees over the age of 70 on equity grounds. The bill provides a commonsense solution to the frustrations felt by some short-term staff and it will provide better value for these employees. First State Super, the default superannuation fund for these employees, also supports these cost-saving measures. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
MEDICAL PRACTICE AMENDMENT BILL 2008
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 15 May 2008.
Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [10.57 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Medical Practice Amendment Bill 2008. The main provisions of the bill arise out of an independent review chaired by former Federal Court judge Deirdre O'Connor in 2006 after the criminal conviction of general practitioner Ms Suman Sood for unlawfully administering a drug to a woman with intent to procure miscarriage and for unlawfully causing a woman to take a drug with intent to procure miscarriage. Additional changes have been made to the bill to strengthen the regulatory process after revelations about Dr Graeme Reeves. Ms O'Connor also considered the further changes.
The changes to the Medical Practice Act focus on five areas. The first is increasing public protection. These changes involve the following: an amendment to the object section of the Act to provide that the protection of the health and safety of the public is the paramount consideration in respect of all functions and powers exercised under the legislation by the board or any other person or entity; allowing disciplinary decision-making bodies hearing a disciplinary case to identify what are critical public protection conditions and to red light them accordingly; where the board is satisfied there is evidence that such a condition is breached the medical practitioner will be suspended immediately; and the insertion of a provision expressly requiring the medical board to consider only previous complaints in re-registration proceedings, even those received after the registration.
Procedural provisions dealing with emergency suspension processes under section 66 of the Act are to be strengthened in a range of ways, including providing the board with powers to require production of documents or other information for the purpose of a section 66 inquiry, and enabling the board to provide any information obtained under these powers to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The bill also provides the board with a power to remove or alter conditions or to terminate an order of suspension, and to notify any person the board considers appropriate of action taken under a section 66 inquiry. It also restricts the right of practitioners to apply to the Supreme Court for review of a section 66 decision until after the practitioner has exhausted a new right of appeal to the chairperson or deputy chairperson of the Medical Tribunal. It also requires medical practitioners to provide the board, where requested, with information about where the medical practitioner works so that the board can notify those facilities about any orders or conditions imposed on the practitioner. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7783
The bill introduces for the first time in Australia mandatory obligations on doctors to report serious misconduct by fellow doctors. The key features of the system include that practitioners will be required to report colleagues to the New South Wales Medical Board where they have a reasonable belief that serious misconduct has occurred. Serious misconduct will cover: sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine; being intoxicated by drugs or alcohol while practicing medicine; or engaging in conduct while practicing medicine which is a flagrant departure from accepted standards of professional practice or competence and which risks harm to some other person. Reporting will be restricted to actions taken while practicing medicine. Therefore, doctors will not be expected to report on colleagues' conduct outside of medical practice. For example, they will not be obliged to report a colleague who gets drunk at a private function or who has an extra-marital affair.
Failure to report will be a contravention of the Act. This in turn may constitute unsatisfactory professional misconduct, and in serious cases may even be considered professional misconduct, making the practitioner liable to being struck off the register. The bill also increases the level of transparency and accountability of the disciplinary process. The Reeves case has led to a perception that the standards applied to doctors by other doctors give too much weight to professional interests as opposed to the public interest and operates on a secretive, closed level. To overcome this it is proposed to require urgent section 66 reviews to include non-medical representatives and professional standards committees to include a legal representative to chair proceedings. The bill also overturns the present presumption that professional standards committees hearings are confidential and their findings are not to be published.
Significant changes have been made to the powers of disciplinary bodies to have regard to multiple complaints and previous findings or judgements about practitioners, including requiring the Medical Board to have regard to other matters involving practitioners. That includes any other complaint or a previous finding or judgement by a disciplinary tribunal in the exercise of the board's complaint and public protection functions. It also covers where complaints are being prosecuted concurrently before the Medical Tribunal or a professional standards committee. In that case, the tribunal or committee may have regard to all the evidence before it in making factual findings, finding that a practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, or imposing a sanction. It also enables the Medical Tribunal or a professional standards committee to rely on previous judgements or findings of a professional standards committee or tribunal for the purpose of making a finding that a practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, where the previous conduct is sufficiently similar to the conduct alleged against the practitioner in the proceedings.
A number of amendments have also been proposed to the Health Care Complaints Act. The changes include amending the object section to provide that the protection of the health and safety of the public is the paramount consideration in respect of all functions under the Act. The legislation also requires, through assessment, investigation or prosecution, the Health Care Complaints Commission to action matters that have been subject to emergency procedures as soon as is practicable. It requires the commission to have regard to other complaints against a practitioner, or to any previous finding or judgement by a disciplinary tribunal or committee, when making an assessment and to consider undertaking concurrent investigation of all relevant complaints about the same practitioner. Finally, it requires the commission director of proceedings to consider concurrent prosecution of multiple complaints against the same practitioner. The protection of the public is the paramount consideration when it comes to medical regulatory and disciplinary functions. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [11.07 a.m.]: Yesterday the shadow Minister for Health put the Opposition's position on the Medical Practice Amendment Bill 2008. She also outlined the history of the Reeves case leading up to the introduction of this legislation. Throughout this process, the victims have sought legislation to improve the system and provide answers to their questions about the appointment of Dr Reeves. The Minister is trying to scramble and minimise the political fallout from the events surrounding that appointment. This is all about media management; this legislation does not implement a policy designed to ensure that medical misconduct will never happen again. If that were the case, this bill would contain provisions making it mandatory for employers to undertake background checks of medical practitioners before being appointed.
The Government also would have made efforts to ensure that referee checks of doctors are conducted by senior health executives before any credentials committee, medical appointments advisory committee or any other appointment function of a health service approves the appointment of a doctor. The test of this legislation is whether it would prevent a Reeves scenario occurring again. My theory is that it will not, and I will outline why. Carolyn Dewaegeneire, the brave woman who first approached me last year and who sought an 7784 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
investigation of the Reeves appointment through this Chamber, tells me that this bill does not adequately protect medical patients in New South Wales. The shadow Minister likewise outlined to the House yesterday the position of the chief executive officer of the Southern General Practice Network, which is located in southern New South Wales and covers the Bega and Pambula areas. The shadow Minister quoted a letter from the chief executive officer, which states
Changing the legislation to make the NSW Board more rigorous and more transparent than it has been is not a bad thing.
Members on this side of the House concur. The letter continues:
However, simply addressing these issues does not, as the Minister makes out in her preliminary remarks, address the issues seen in Bega.
The Government should still be held accountable for the failure of its public servants to undertake the appropriate pre-employment checks as are required under public sector employment processes.
The general practitioners of the Far South Coast trusted that an Area Health Service appointed specialist had undergone these pre-employment checks and referred to Dr Reeves in good faith.
The Opposition has sought to address the actions of public servants by introducing a private member's bill. All along, the Minister has tried to create the impression that Dr Reeves' credentials were not checked. She stated on 6 March in this House:
I am not going to make any excuses for the Southern Area Health Service. It failed to perform background checks on a candidate who the Medical Tribunal found lied and cheated his way into a job.
The fact remains that background checks were conducted. We have now learnt that a criminal record check was conducted by the human resources department of the health service that cleared him on 19 March 2002. The health service was in possession of signed copies of the orders from the Medical Board, which set out his health, monitoring and employment-related conditions on 12 March 2002. John Mortimer, Deputy Director of Clinical Services, telephoned one of Dr Reeves referees on 11 April 2002. On 26 March 2002 the credentials committee of the health service, which had Dr John Mortimer as its chair, met to discuss applicants for the position of obstetrician and gynaecologist at Pambula and Bega. It is noted in the minutes of the meeting that the committee recommended that further information be sought from the Medical Board on this issue.
Whilst it is not clear from the minutes whether this recommendation applied to all applicants, the minutes suggest it did, given that it is in a separate paragraph of the documentation. What is clear from the Reeves application dated 10 February 2002 is that he indicated to the Government that his registration was made conditional and he had been in the impaired physicians program, undergoing regular reviews by the board since that time. Also in that application he made it clear that not only was his registration conditional but he also spelled out a number of conditions relating to the impaired hearing review and some of the conditions relating to the impaired physicians program. They included the need to be under the care of a psychiatrist, for him to be reviewed annually by the board's nominated psychiatrist, for him to attend the board for review annually, to maintain contact with a general practitioner and to notify the board of any change to his practice. That was spelled out in the application of Dr Graeme Reeves when he applied for the position.
He was interviewed for the position by the medical and dental appointments advisory committee on 2 April 2002. That committee was chaired by Grattan Wilson and consisted of Denise Robinson, who quit New South Wales Health two weeks ago, and John Mortimer as secretary. It also included doctors who would work closely with Dr Reeves in the future. Again, I believe this poses a problem, as having doctors on the appointment panel who will be working closely with the doctor in question raises questions about the overall appointments process. On 12 April the board approved Dr Reeves appointment, and that appointment was seconded by Mick Veitch, a Labor member of Parliament. On 11 April a phone call was made by Dr John Mortimer, chair of the credentials committee, secretary of the medical appointments advisory committee and Deputy Director of Clinical Services of the Southern Area Health Service, to one of Reeves' referees. From the referee's report it was stated about Dr Reeves:
Very well-trained … technically very well-trained … had depression there was a catastrophe … few arguments with nursing staff and junior registrars.
Ok when normal and has apparently been normal … last heard not meant to do obstetrics … was holding fort at Hornsby/dispensed with services. Ok as long as treatment has been successful.
This referee check should have been carried out before the credentials committee even began to assess the application. Again, this shows a major deficiency in the legislation before the House today. It highlights the 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7785
need for greater scrutiny of the public sector appointment of doctors in the State. Again I highlight comments made in Parliament yesterday in relation to this matter. In relation to that diary note the Minister for Health stated:
It is a handwritten note. In fact, it was written several days after Dr Reeves was appointed to the position.
This poses the question: At what point was he appointed? A handwritten note was written on 11 April 2002, transcribed after a phone call that took place on 15 April 2002, which was one day before the board meeting in which a motion was carried to hire him. He was notified in writing about the appointment approval on 17 April 2002. Again this brings into question the judgement of the Minister for Health on this matter. The report of the commission of inquiry into the Dr Patel case in Queensland, handed down in 2005, made these statements about Dr Patel:
This registration and appointment occurred through a chapter of negligent mistakes by the Medical Board and by administrators at Bundaberg Base Hospital. The Medical Board negligently failed to properly check Dr Patel's paper credentials to make any assessment of whether he had the qualifications and experience for practising surgery in Bundaberg ...
He came to be employed at Bundaberg Base Hospital without any assessment being made of his clinical skill and competence. This should have been done by that hospital, as a condition of his appointment, by a process of credentialing and privileging, pursuant to a policy and guidelines of Queensland Health which had been in force since 2002. This failure was due to the negligence of [one particular doctor], then Acting Director of Medical Services at Bundaberg Base Hospital.
We in the Opposition are seeking to establish legislative provisions that make it mandatory for bureaucrats to check the credentials of any doctor being employed in this State. In the case of Patel the guidelines did not work. The Government is introducing this legislation on the premise that Dr Reeves' background was not checked but it is also trying to bring about greater scrutiny of the medical profession. I have had a discussion with Carolyn Dewaegeneire, the lady who brought this issue to notice. She has written to me of her concerns about the legislation, and I want to note some of those concerns on the record. She is concerned about the definition of the word "flagrantly". She also expresses concern about a practitioner being ordered to take part in a performance assessment only if the Health Care Complaints Commission concurs with the proposed action. That is seen as a loophole.
She is also concerned about the use of the word "may" in relation to the exercise of powers in relation to concurrent presentation of multiple complaints about a practitioner. She believes that exercise of that power should be a requirement and that the loose word "may" should not be used. She also indicates that the Professional Standards Committee proceedings will only be public unless the committee directs otherwise. Again, there is a question mark around what determination will be made by the committee. The committee might not make all those hearings public. She also goes on to state that the bill does not adequately protect medical patients in New South Wales. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Carolyn Dewaegeneire has highlighted a number of deficiencies in the bill and I want to put them on the record. I suspect the Government will not take up some of those concerns. From Carolyn's perspective, and that of many other women who were involved in these terrible events, their concern is that what was done to them should never happen again. The legislation seeks to focus on the medical profession, while the Government continues to avoid focusing on why it happened and on what needs to be done in the public sector, through the Department of Health, to ensure it never happens again.
I hope that a situation similar to the one we have experienced with Dr Reeves never happens again. The incidents involving Dr Reeves have a long history. I raised this matter in the House eight months ago, but for whatever reason—one might argue political—there has been a cover-up. The bottom line is that the victims seek answers and justice. The feedback I have received from the women interviewed is that the police were incredibly professional. The Dr Reeves case covers an enormous amount of material and I urge everyone to be patient, because the police must get it right. Also, we must await the findings of the Garling inquiry.
The release of documents in the past week through the upper House sheds some light on the matter and highlights deficiencies in the bill, which, because it does not focus on the appointments process within the Department of Health, will not prevent such a tragedy from recurring. Legislation, not departmental guidelines, that makes it mandatory for bureaucrats to check doctors' credentials—whether it is a professional body relating to a speciality or the New South Wales Medical Board—will enhance the system and patient safety. The fact that the credentials committee did not contact referees well before the assessment must be investigated also.
The Opposition will continue to seek accountability. When I first raised this matter in the House on 27 September 2007 I gave a clear indication of what had happened to Carolyn Dewaegeneire. Again I place on 7786 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
the record for the benefit of those who will read the debate that Carolyn Dewaegeneire has shown a strength and determination that I have never before seen in a human being. She is not going to give up. She wants legislation in place and justice done. She wants the system overhauled. She wants issues dealing with the medical profession addressed. The Opposition will support the bill because it makes some inroads. However, Carolyn has made it very clear that the bill does not adequately address patient safety in New South Wales because it does not cover the appointments process.
Many women have been affected by the actions of Dr Reeves. I am aware of 30 women in the Bega Valley shire alone who have suffered at the hands of Dr Reeves, and women who were his patients in years gone by when he was practising elsewhere around the State are coming forward. All these women deserve answers from the Minister for Health and a clear explanation as to how he remained in the system without scrutiny. I remain concerned that the Government is adopting a media strategy when it should adopt the private member's bill introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which focuses on the appointments process overseen by bureaucrats. No doubt the Garling inquiry will investigate who knew what and when in the medical profession and the police investigation will do likewise. I reiterate that on a number of occasions the Government has tried to deflect responsibility from its involvement in this affair and subsequent cover-up, particularly given that it now involves a Labor member of Parliament, Mick Veitch.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [11.25 a.m.]: In speaking to the Medical Practice Amendment Bill 2008 I thank the member for Bega and the shadow Minister for Health for their work on this case. Also, I thank Carolyn Dewaegeneire for leading the fight: her efforts enabled a lady who lives in Casino to go public with her concerns about a Dr Hasil in March 2008, after she had lived with them for six years. The bill is long overdue and, like my colleagues, I believe that a mandatory background check is necessary for future appointments. I thank Alex Easton of the Northern Star, who was able to write compassionately about Connie Scholl's story:
North Coast Area Health Service was not allowed to check former obstetrician Roman Hasil's overseas criminal record before it hired him in 2001, the health service said.
But knowing Dr Hasil had served time in jail in Singapore for domestic violence before he came to Australia would not necessarily have stopped him being employed at Lismore Base Hospital.
Dr Hasil worked for four years at Lismore Base Hospital before going to New Zealand … where he botched a string of sterilisation procedures and was suspended for drinking while on call.
The report also says Dr Hasil made a "hasty" exit from Lismore after the North Coast Area Health Service began investigating his time sheets, on the suspicion the overseas-trained doctor had been claiming money he wasn't entitled to. Dr Hasil denied this claim to the NZ inquiry, but the health service has said it disciplined the doctor over the incident.
He has since been the subject of an investigation by New Zealand authorities, which led to a damning report being issued this week and included claims he had been charged and jailed for domestic violence in Singapore.
Dr Hasil has worked for two hospitals in Queensland since fleeing New Zealand and was tracked down in Sydney by New Zealand media, where a friend reportedly said he was contemplating working as a bricklayer and denied the doctor had "run away".
Responding to questions from The Northern Star, the health service said it did routine criminal checks on Dr Hasil within Australia when it hired him.
However, a spokesman said the service "does not have the jurisdiction to conduct international criminal checks". The service "was not aware of any prior conviction" when it hired Dr Hasil. The article continued:
"Had it obtained any details of such a conviction, the mater would have been referred to the NSW Medical Board," the spokesman said.
The NSW Medical Board this week suspended Dr Hasil's registration in the state, following [these details].
Since Ms Connie Scholl came forward with her concerns about Dr Hasil, another 10 women who had similar experiences with Dr Hasil have come forward, although none of them has lodged a formal complaint or spoken publicly about their experience. In March the North Coast Area Health Service, under chief executive Chris Crawford, announced that the service had launched an urgent review into its handling of Ms Scholl's complaint. He told the Northern Star he had called Ms Scholl to tell her of the review, but I talked to Ms Scholl as late as yesterday and she has not spoken to Mr Crawford.
Mr Crawford said he had asked the service's director of clinical governance to review Lismore Base Hospital's system for handling complaints to determine how it could be improved and advise on any necessary 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7787
follow-up actions that should be taken on the original complaint. On 14 July 2002 Ms Scholl was transferred to the Lismore Base Hospital. On 15 July her child was born. On 16 July she left hospital. On 16 August she sent a complaint letter about Dr Hasil to the Lismore Base Hospital, of which I have a copy. The Northern Rivers Area Health Service acknowledged her letter in writing:
Dear Ms Scholl,
I am in receipt of your letter which was received in my office on 1 September 2003 in which you outline your concerns about your treatment at Lismore Base Hospital.
Your concerns are currently being investigated and I will contact you with the outcome of this investigation.
That letter was written on 24 September 2003 in response to her letter of 1 September. On 16 October she received another letter from the Lismore Base Hospital virtually saying the same thing:
It is expected a response will be available to you within four weeks.
Bear in mind that that was 16 October 2003. This is a complaint about a doctor who has since been deregistered. This lady had enough courage to give her story to the paper on 28 February, after she had lived with it for six years. On 29 February 2008 the hospital rang her and said, "We don't seem to have any complaint from you", yet it had acknowledged her letter back in 2003, and that is all that ever happened with the complaint. The story was published. Dr David Hutton contacted her to get the story. The services of a sexual abuse counsellor were provided. On advice from certain people, police statements have been given. The sexual abuse counsellor has been very comforting to Connie Scholl and has kept in touch with her. She says, "I have continually kept in touch with Connie and to this day she is still waiting for answers". I note that clause 8 of the bill states that professional standards committees will now also have to take into account a practitioner's past conduct. If this had been done, Dr Hasil would not have been able to practise in Lismore, in New Zealand or in Queensland. Dr Hasil has been deregistered and, as I understand it, he has a lot to answer for.
I compliment the member for Bega and our shadow Minister for Health on their work in bringing this matter forward. Their work has encouraged other patients throughout the State who have experienced problems with doctors within the medical system to come forward. Everyone in this House would agree that, by and large, doctors do a tremendous job in our communities, especially in country and regional areas. However, I am the son of an old fruiterer and it is always the bad apple that destroys the box. I draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Wollongong, that background checks should be mandatory prior to any future appointments. Let us learn from these mistakes. Enough patients in this State are hurting. Mandatory background checks could have saved them from that hurt. I encourage the Minister to include mandatory background checks in the legislation.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.37 a.m.]: Like many of my colleagues, I am appalled at the failure of public servants to appropriately undertake and act on pre-employment checks of potentially dangerous doctors to protect a public that deserves better government oversight of health services. However, my brief comments will touch on two areas covered by the Medical Practice Amendment Bill and a concern that one of my constituents—a retired doctor—has raised with me. The two areas are, firstly, the ability of relevant authorities when dealing with a complaint against a medical practitioner to have regard to the totality of any previous complaints and adverse findings against that practitioner and, secondly, improving the accountability and transparency of investigative and disciplinary processes for medical practitioners.
Schedule 1 item [23] to the bill relating to the amendment of the Medical Practice Act 1992 and schedule 2 item [5] relating to the amendment of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 enable the disciplinary bodies referred to in the bill—the medical tribunal and the professional standards committee—to take into account recommendations or written statements of a decision on a performance review provided by a performance review panel. In this regard, my constituent Dr Dawson writes:
This I would be most concerned about. The Performance Review Panel (PRP) hears matters in private and has recently made, without proper evidence, a series of punitive orders, far exceeding in cost to the practitioner, the fines available to Professional Standards Committees.
I welcome the opening of the PSC to the public. If findings of a PRP are to be taken into account subsequently in retrospect, the PRPs should also be properly conducted in a fair and transparent manner and not chaired by a lay person with inordinate powers as at present.
I request the Minister to comment on this in her speech in reply. 7788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.38 a.m.]: As has been indicated, complex matters have given rise to a review that has resulted in the introduction of the Medical Practice Amendment Bill. The unfortunate and sad circumstances surrounding the treatment of patients by Dr Reeves have highlighted these complex issues. Both the member for Bega and I raised these issues in the media, and they have been the subject of much media discussion. I trust that the bill will address some of those issues. In regard to the provisions that will require medical practitioners to report on fellow practitioners in a number of circumstances, clearly there is already a professional duty of care by medical practitioners when working with other medical practitioners to ensure that each operates in accordance with appropriate professional standards.
The legislation before the House arises as a result of the circumstances involving Dr Graeme Reeves. It will place additional pressure on medical practitioners. As a lawyer, I am aware of the sort of issues that face professionals in dealing with clients or patients. I was interested to note the comments of Dr Garyck Joseph from my local area on the front page of the Medical Observer of 16 May 2008. I know Dr Joseph extremely well, as he is in practice with my wife. I have not discussed the issues with him, but I will highlight his comments for the benefit of the Minister for Health, who is not in the Chamber, and ask her to consider them in reply. Dr Joseph is a very capable and considered person and he would not raise issues publicly unless he had genuine concerns. I read from the Medical Observer an article by Desi Corbett:
Proposed laws compelling GPs to report each other for professional misconduct are a step closer, with the NSW Health Minister tabling the new legislation in Parliament last week, but concerns remain over grey areas in the legislation …
The proposed laws will force doctors to report on other practitioners' actions involving sexual abuse and drug or alcohol intoxication while practising and could see them facing committees chaired by lawyers …
However, doctors are calling for a much clearer definition of the issues about GPs who fail to report colleagues for misconduct because they could find themselves facing the NSW Medical Board answering allegations of unsatisfactory or professional misconduct.
Sydney GP Dr Garyck Joseph said clarification was definitely needed and explanatory guidelines should be sent to doctors in New South Wales.
"Adding 'the risk of harm to another person' would certainly influence me to act on it more, but we also need 'flagrant departure' explained in legal terms."
Medical practitioners in general regard themselves as having a role to report other medical practitioners who are not behaving in an appropriately professional manner. That would be the norm through most professions. If a professional person observed, and was certain, that a fellow professional was not providing appropriate services, he or she would feel morally, ethically and legally bound to report that fellow professional to the appropriate board, tribunal or oversight body. The aim of the Medical Practice Amendment Bill is to clarify the obligations of medical practitioners, but I wonder how some medical practitioners will interpret that. A general practitioner observing another general practitioner is likely to be at the same standard of professional practice and would have some idea of what a reasonable general practitioner in a particular set of circumstances should do in relation to a patient.
General practitioners should be in a position to make informed evaluations and, in the absence of malice or other inappropriate motivating force, one could expect that a general practitioner would make a report against a colleague. Firstly, I ask the Minister for Health to inform the House what will happen if a general practitioner who is motivated by less than an appropriate professional approach to his or her colleague determines that a report should be made? Will there be a sanction applied to a general practitioner who makes a report about a fellow general practitioner for other than proper professional purposes, for example, in a competitive environment? Will appropriate sanctions be in place to ensure that the practitioner is exercising a truly professional judgement in reporting his or her colleague? If so, what sanctions will flow if there is doubt surrounding that issue?
Secondly, practitioners often work in environments in which they are with other medical practitioners who have different levels of expertise or specialties. Some clarity should be provided of what is expected of general practitioners who may be working with, for example, specialists. If Dr Reeves had been working in the city rather than at Bega at the time of the incidents that brought him to public attention, it may well have been that a general practitioner may have assisted him in the delivery of babies in his obstetrics practice—albeit that that practice was highly suspect with the benefit of hindsight. What would happen if a general practitioner who is working as an assistant surgeon to a specialist surgeon—such as an obstetrician, a cardiovascular specialist, a cardiologist or an orthopaedic specialist—observed something that may in their view amount to inappropriate practice, or some other action of the specialist that created an issue in their mind? 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7789
What onus will there be on a practitioner, who has less training and expertise, to evaluate a practitioner who has much greater training and expertise? If there are carte blanche expectations that medical practitioners with less expertise will evaluate medical practitioners who have greater expertise or a specialty, that will impose very onerous requirements on a practitioner who does not purport to have the same level of specialised expertise. I know from being married to a doctor, and having many friends who are doctors, that this happens quite frequently and that that will be a general cause of concern to medical practitioners. The legislation needs to be interpreted in a practical manner.
I ask the Minister for Health to clarify the issue during her reply. The comments by Dr Garyck Joseph on the front page of the Medical Observer effectively have raised the issue. As I said, I have not spoken to him, but I believe we need to be more supportive of medical practitioners generally. Throughout New South Wales in urban and regional areas there is a profound shortage of medical practitioners. If we put more and more pressure on them to make their medical practice more and more onerous, and if they feel they have an obligation to be evaluating others who have a completely different and highly specialised medical capacity, we are facing the risk of deterring more and more people from becoming medical practitioners. Many aspects of the regulatory framework already do that. The issue needs to be clearly spelled out for them.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.49 a.m.], in reply: I will address a number of issues that were raised in debate on the Medical Practice Amendment Bill. As to the appointment process applied to Dr Reeves, the Minister for Health has made it clear that the Government will not make any excuses for the significant shortcomings in the recruitment processes that were followed by the former Southern Area Health Service in 2002. While there is no question that Dr Reeves deliberately set out to deceive his employers and withhold vital information during his recruitment, the fact remains that the systems and process followed by the area health service were inadequate.
For that reason, the Government has submitted documentation relevant to the appointment of Dr Reeves to the special commission of inquiry that is being conducted by Mr Peter Garling, SC. I remind the House that the special commissioner has the powers to subpoena documents, to call witnesses and to compel witnesses to answer specific questions. The commissioner will determine who will be called to give evidence, which was an issue raised by Opposition members. Further, it is not appropriate for members to anticipate the possible outcome of the commissioner's inquiries. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition called on the Government to impose statutory requirements on employers to conduct backgrounds checks. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation at the time Dr Reeves was appointed and the changes to practices in the public heath system that have been made since.
The House has been informed on a number of occasions about the substantial changes that have been made to NSW Health policy directives over the past few years as to the employment and appointment of medical practitioners. These policies—which were introduced in 2005, some time after Dr Reeves' position with the Southern Area Health Service was terminated—make it very clear that public health organisations cannot simply accept documentary evidence provided by an applicant. They must verify registration status directly with the Medical Board. Managers must comply with a comprehensive reference checking process. This process requires applicants to include referees, not just professional colleagues, and a current or recent supervisor. Compliance with NSW Health policy directives is mandatory for health public sector employees and managers. Compliance with the directives is a condition of the NSW Health code of conduct, and failure to comply is enforceable by disciplinary action in serious cases.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition failed to mention additional changes recently announced by the Government that further strengthen the recruitment processes. Pursuant to these changes, public health sector managers will be required to consult a public health sector service check register before offering employment or appointment. This register will include information about current suspensions, any conditions imposed as a result of disciplinary action, termination for disciplinary action while the person was employed in the public sector, and cases in which a person resigned before serious disciplinary action could be concluded. The register will provide an important additional tool to further improve the current appointment processes.
As the Minister noted in her agreement in principle speech, one of the key aspects of the proposals is to increase the transparency of disciplinary proceedings. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest that the proposed changes that will apply to the Professional Standards Committee should apply also to performance review panels. Her statement indicates that she fails to understand the role and function of the panels. Performance review panels undertake an inspectorial and monitoring role. They are not investigative, nor do they make determinations on questions of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional 7790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
misconduct. Therefore, they do not conduct disciplinary hearings in the manner of a tribunal or the Professional Standards Committee. Any concerns about possible misconduct that arise before a review panel are not dealt with by the panel but are referred for action through the complaints process.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised the issue of legal representation before the Professional Standards Committee. I again emphasise that the critical issue and paramount consideration in all these amendments has been to focus on public protection. The Professional Standards Committee process is designed to be inquisitorial. Doctors are allowed to have advisors present with them. As a matter of practice, the advisor is generally a lawyer. The Government would be concerned if the protection of the public was compromised by adding further legal formality and disputation, thereby delaying the disciplinary process. The current changes already provide for the appointment of a lawyer to the Professional Standards Committee and for that lawyer to chair the committee. This will ensure that due consideration is given to the legal rights of the practitioner appearing before proceedings. I also note that serious matters, whereby a practitioner may be struck off the register, must be referred to the tribunal where there is an entitlement to legal representation. Given the very serious consequences of the outcome of a tribunal process, this is entirely appropriate.
I thank members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Bega whose concerns I have responded to. I am glad that my Opposition colleagues have welcomed the changes. The key changes in the bill seek to ensure that rogue doctors never again can fly under the radar and that the medical profession will no longer operate under a shroud of secrecy protected by self-regulation and confidentiality clauses. Doctors will be scrutinised in the same manner as are people in other professions. I note that many people within the medical profession have welcomed the changes. Dr Andrew Keegan, President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association, supported the move to greater scrutiny in the April edition of Australian Doctor magazine. Dr Keegan said:
It has become apparent that checks on those practising medicine in NSW were not up to scratch in the past few years. The community must be able to rely on the processes that are supposed to bring inappropriate practice to the attention of the authorities and ensure it is acted on and better still prevented.
Dr Andrew Dix from the New South Wales Medical Board told the SBS Insight program on 15 April that the New South Wales Medical Board supported this legislation. He said:
It's more than a code of ethics in New South Wales. It's a professional legal obligation on doctors. But now putting in the legislation will give encouragement to those [doctors] who might just be wavering and are not quite sure. So certainly we support it.
The Iemma Government has taken the lead on this issue. This legislation is the strongest in the country. It has been well received by our colleagues in other States and Territories, who may well follow our lead. The Medical Observer on 14 March stated:
The NSW Government is spear-heading radical new legislation that will make it compulsory for medical practitioners to report their colleagues' misconduct with other states including Queensland and Tasmania confirming they may follow.
Indeed, the federal President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, told the SBS Insight program on 15 April that the case of Dr Reeves and others had highlighted the need for protective legislation. Dr Capolingua said:
I think that the cases we have been talking about contribute towards the need for this sort of protective legislation to evolve so that doctors can make clear complaints about their colleagues if they are concerned without feeling they are jeopardising themselves in the process and I think that's something that probably could be replicated across Australia.
These endorsements from those within the medical profession demonstrate that the Iemma Government is on the right track. I take this opportunity to thank some of the people with whom the Department of Health consulted in the course of developing this legislation. In particular, the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation and the two regulatory bodies—the Health Care Complaints Commission and the New South Wales Medical Board—have provided useful input into the development of the changes to ensure they are both robust and practical. I also thank Ms Lorraine Long of the Medical Error Action Group.
At two meetings with the Minster Ms Long has asked for changes to the law to make complaints procedures more transparent. I agree that this objective is important and represents a key element of the changes the Government is proposing in the bill. Finally, I thank Ms Deirdre O'Connor, who agreed to take on a review 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7791
of the amending legislation prepared by the Government earlier in the year and who identified a number of further changes. The two key purposes of the changes are patient protection and the accountability of the statutory disciplinary system. I believe the patient protection role of our regulatory system will be reinforced and enhanced by a system of mandatory reporting that focuses on serious misconduct and provides protection for those who make such reports.
Strengthening the emergency powers of the medical board to allow consideration of multiple and similar complaints will also give the regulatory authorities a greater range of options when faced with poor practice or continued poor and substandard practice by doctors. The changes also ensure a far greater level of accountability and transparency by opening up the professional standards committees to external scrutiny and by ensuring a greater role for non-medical practitioners in the disciplinary process. I am confident that, taken together, this package of reforms will make the New South Wales legislation among the strongest and most accountable in Australia. I commend the changes to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (ROCK THROWING) BILL 2008
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 14 May 2008.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [12.02 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008.
Mr Frank Terenzini: It's only one section; be quick!
Mr GREG SMITH: I am inclined to slow down now. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation, and we are not being triumphal in saying that we were the ones who pushed for the legislation as early as September last year.
Mr Alan Ashton: August.
Mr GREG SMITH: Thank you; it might have been August. It was clear that current laws did not cover the many ways that someone could throw a rock and the punishments available. Several years ago South Australia created the specific offence of rock throwing. Last year the Government, almost as an addendum to its changes to the Crimes Act when it removed the definition of "malice", which had qualified many types of offences, threw in an increased penalty for what used to be called maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm or malicious wounding. It is now called intentionally or recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, and the penalty for that offence was increased from seven to 10 years. The offence does not require intent to cause grievous bodily harm or really serious harm, but it requires deliberately performing an act to hurt someone that results in grievous bodily harm. However, that offence was not sufficient to cover the many rock-throwing incidents when people are not injured but crash their car or suffer nervous shock as a result of a rock crashing through their windscreen.
Rock throwing has received constant media attention since 1998 and has caused much consternation throughout the community. Since last year the Coalition has been calling for increased resources for education campaigns against rock throwing and for the creation of a specific offence of rock throwing. Where are those education programs? Where are the advertisements on television? Rock throwing is a very serious offence, and unfortunately the number of incidents is increasing. People are being badly injured—and on occasion killed—in rock-throwing incidents. Rock throwing is a great social evil. But what does the Government spend its 7792 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
advertising money on? It is that castle in the air: the North West Metro link. It may never be built. The Government is spending taxpayers' money advertising a project for which it has no real plan. It is simply a concept, and even that has not been worked through properly because the Government has not told us where the stations will be.
But rock throwing, which causes great harm to people—Nicole Miller, for example, suffered brain damage when a man threw rocks from a bridge at the car in which she was a passenger—gets no mention at all. From time to time we hear about another rock-throwing case, but there is no education program to warn the community of the damage that can be done to people. One might ask why people have to be warned. Commonsense dictates that if people throw a rock from a height at a vehicle it could kill someone—in fact, it could kill many people if it causes a crash in which a bus is overturned or something of that sort. There is no education program and no advertising.
The Government wastes money telling the taxpayers of this State how good it will be when it sells the power stations. I heard advertisements about that this morning, and I suppose we will get months of them now. There is a massive split in the Labor Party because the Government ignored the party and its 702 delegates at the State conference. How will Labor pay its helpers at the polling booths at the next election? It will have to conscript people. The Government will probably introduce a special bill to conscript unemployed people to work at polling booths because the Labor Party will not have any members left and it will not be able to get unionists to help—even if it pays them. I will return to the bill.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: A fair degree of latitude is shown to members who lead for the Opposition in debate. However, this is a fairly straightforward bill that makes rock throwing an offence. We do not need to hear a speech about unionists, Labor Party machinations and the like. If the member for Epping returns to the leave of the bill we will hear his contribution without any further interruptions.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Epping indicated that he would return to the leave of the bill. I encourage him to do so.
Mr Barry Collier: You can always join the Labor Party.
Mr GREG SMITH: After what they have done in trying to—
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Members will cease interjecting.
Mr GREG SMITH: We called for specific penalties for rock throwing depending on the level of seriousness. The offences of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm or recklessly causing grievous bodily harm cover a multiplicity of actions. But offences involving poisons or stupefying drugs are specific, not general. That is one way Parliament can send a message that certain behaviour is heinous and will not be accepted. The Government has chosen to introduce a penalty of five years imprisonment for the offence of rock throwing. We are happy with that, and we thank the Government for it. I believe the bill will benefit the community. It also offers a good sentencing alternative to more serious penalties. Ms Lee Rhiannon of the Greens claimed yesterday in the other place that this offence is not necessary. She said that I should know better than to call for the creation of a specific offence because the existing laws are adequate. A number of members have been involved in the criminal law, so I do not expect to have to convince them. In a criminal trial, even though it is clear that someone has committed the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, the jury will sometimes look for the least serious charge on which to convict. That is just the way it is.
I instance the case of a robbery with striking in which I prosecuted a pathetic little Aboriginal fellow who was about 16 or 17 years old. For some reason he was committed for trial on the charge of robbery with striking. He hit a bloke with a brick at Redfern station and took his pay while in the company of a number of other youths. He could say only a few words in his dock statement because he was so scared and upset about being in court in front of a jury. I am sure that the jury members felt sorry for him. After the judge had completed his summing up, the foreperson asked whether the defendant could be convicted of something else. The judge directed that he could be convicted of robbery, which carried a lesser penalty, and that is what happened. The evidence was clear that he had hit the bloke with the brick; he had admitted it. It is good to have alternative offences for this serious type of behaviour because it provides reasonable sentencing options. If those options are not available, juries may acquit on the more serious offence even though someone has been badly injured. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7793
Throwing objects at vehicles is bizarre and very dangerous, and we should discourage it as much as possible. In some ways it is more dangerous than firing bullets at a vehicle because the chances of hitting a vehicle are less and bullets may pass through. However, the shock associated with a brick hurtling through a vehicle window would probably be greater than that of a bullet, unless someone was hit. It is an explosive situation. Even if people are not hurt, they could lose control and crash into something, even a bus. Members criticised the concept of a specific offence for rock throwing. The legislation dealing with robbery lists many classifications, including robbery or stealing from a person, which is covered by section 94 of the Crimes Act; robbery in circumstances of aggravation, where someone does something in company, uses corporal violence, intentionally or recklessly inflicts actual bodily harm or takes someone's liberty, which is covered by section 95; wounding, which is covered by section 96; robbery while being armed or in company; and robbery with wounding. The scale of offences includes penalties of imprisonment ranging from 14 to 25 years. It is appropriate that that type of conduct, which is very serious, is the subject of a series of offences.
Last year I called for amendments to the Bail Act. I reiterate that call. The Government keeps promising that it is reviewing the Act, which is a nightmare of cutting and pasting. From time to time people who have committed serious offences are granted bail and go on to commit more offences when there should have been a presumption against bail. The bail legislation should be amended to cover serial rock throwers— people who think it is great fun. Such people obviously exist in the community. I support comprehensive changes to the Bail Act and I hope that they will incorporate rock-throwing offences. This is a long overdue reform and I hope that the Government reconsiders its position. It should stop wasting money on advertising other things and spend it on advertising the evils of rock throwing. It should provide education programs in schools, universities, and colleges of advanced education—as well as the places that the member for The Entrance frequents.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.15 p.m.]: These terrible rock-throwing attacks have occurred across the State, and the area around my electorate is no exception. The Princes Highway in Shellharbour and the M5 in the south-west corridor have been the scene of a series of incidents over many years that have caused serious injury to innocent victims. The Central Coast has more than its fair share of highways and overbridges where rock-throwing attacks can occur, and have occurred. Just two months ago a rock-throwing incident occurred in Tumbi Umbi. On 1 February, the Central Coast Express Advocate reported on the incident:
A retired couple narrowly escaped serious injury when their car was pelted with rocks.
They were driving home from a friend's house at Tumbi Umbi along the Central Coast Highway at 9.30pm on Monday when they saw three males emerge from the bush beside Wamberal Cemetery.
Bob Watson, 65, of Avoca Beach, said the first rock put a hole in the windscreen while another glanced off the passenger-side corner centimetres from his wife's face.
A third left a large dent in their front number plate. "They went off like a shotgun," he said.
And just a few days ago—on Monday—there was another attack near Gosford. The attack damaged five cars on the F3 at Kariong. Two windscreens were smashed, and five cars received dents and scratches. Thankfully, no-one was injured. I congratulate my colleague the member for Wyong on leading the Central Coast response to this issue. He initiated a meeting of all relevant parties—the police, the community, the bus industry and government officials—to develop protocols to deal with this mindless, life-threatening behaviour. Subsequently a coordinated action plan has been implemented to respond to the events.
I will relate to the House the details of a recent incident involving my wife and I and the use of another object at Soldier's Beach. One Sunday about six weeks ago my wife and I went to the beach. The back car park has an incline on the eastern side and a road hump has been installed to slow the traffic. We slowed down, as appropriate, and the front windscreen of our car exploded. We did not know what had happened. The object came from the passenger side of the car, where my wife was sitting, with the window open. I parked the car and discovered that we had been hit by a water bomb. While the car was parked it was hit by another water bomb. However, we were still confused about what was happening. I then got out of the car and looked around. I saw two young teenagers up on the hill. As I got to within three or four metres they did a bunk—as one would expect. As the shadow Minister said, the missiles are not confined to rocks. Anything can be used, and any missile can cause injury.
These incidents illustrate the need for an offence of rock throwing to deter these mindless idiots. To help protect the community, the Iemma Government has introduced a new offence of rock throwing. The bill 7794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
introduces a stand-alone offence in the Crimes Act prohibiting a person from intentionally throwing objects at, or dropping objects on or towards, vehicles or vessels on roads, navigable waterways and railways where the person's conduct risks the safety of any person. The offence applies even when a vehicle or vessel is stationary at the time that the object is thrown or dropped. To prosecute the offence it is not necessary to prove either that the accused was aware that his or her conduct risked the safety of any person or that the object made contact with the vehicle or vessel. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [12.19 p.m.]: I am pleased to be able to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008. I speak in this debate because Mark Evans, the son of Keith and Helen Evans, who live just around the corner from me, was killed in 1998. The Mark Evans Bridge at Menangle is named after him. Every time somebody is hurt by a rock-throwing incident they are reminded of what happened to their son. They wrote to me about the sentences the people who caused the incident received. They stated:
… these sentences are not a deterrent for killing a 30 year old man, our only son, who had a wife, a son of 7 months old and a daughter of 5 years old.
The incident has had a terrible impact on their lives and I thought I should make some points on their behalf today. Throwing objects at motorists and public transport is a stupid and cowardly act. It has a serious impact, not only on the drivers and passengers who are targeted, but also on the community as a whole. Rock throwing impacts on the community through people's fear for their safety, withdrawal of essential transport services, the cost and time of repairing damage, and the increased cost of public transport. The criminals who perpetrate these acts have in some cases caused bus services to be suspended to entire suburbs because of their persistent acts of stupidity. In disadvantaged areas of outer Western Sydney this can mean the suspension of the only public transport, and for some people the only form of transport, to important services. That occurred in Rosemeadow, an area formerly in my electorate, now in the electorate of Wollondilly.
The terrible consequences of rock throwing have been tragically illustrated by the death of Mark Evans. The effect on Mark's parents and his family has been terrible. They are a wonderful family. They have turned their attention to being volunteers at the Camden Hospital auxiliary. They work tirelessly for the auxiliary— Helen is the Treasurer and Keith works very hard—but their faces reflect the terrible thing that happened to their son. They were dissatisfied with the penalties that were being imposed, and last year the Government toughened them. When a rock was thrown at Nicole Miller I made representations on their behalf to both the Minister for Police and the Attorney General. In my electorate, as a result of agitation by the Evans family, a couple of bridges have been fully enclosed to prevent rock throwing. At Elderslie High School the police liaison group are talking to students about the dangers of rock throwing.
This bill creates a new stand-alone offence of throwing an object at a vehicle. It does not matter if the vehicle is not struck or if nobody is injured, the offence can still apply. The offence carries a sentence of up to five years imprisonment. The bill complements a range of existing offences that can be used for situations where people throw rocks at vehicles. These offences cover the full range of possible situations—where the vehicle is damaged and where people are injured. Current offences relating to damage to property, even if no-one is injured, include destroying or damaging property—the old malicious damage—which carries a five-year sentence; destroying or damaging property with intent to cause injury, which carries a seven-year sentence; and destroying or damaging property with the intention of endangering life, which carries a 25-year sentence. There is also a range of tough offences that can apply when people are injured. They include reckless wounding, which carries a seven-year sentence, or 10 years if in company; and recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm, which carries a 10-year sentence, or 14 years if in company.
In dreadful cases where people are killed, offenders could potentially face a charge of murder and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Even if the necessary intention could not be established, they could face a manslaughter charge, which carries a 25-year maximum prison term. This new offence will complement the range of offences already available, especially for situations where a rock is thrown but the vehicle is not struck and no-one is injured. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [12.24 p.m.]: I speak on the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008. Rock throwing is an issue of serious concern in the community, as numerous instances have occurred in the past year, including in Sydney's north. Some members may recall the case of John Marinovic in September last year. The l7-year-old sustained severe head injuries and was forced to undergo emergency brain surgery after being struck by a sandstone block on the northern peninsula. This vicious assault was one of a number last year, which produced an outpouring of community grief and anger that contributed to the introduction of this amending bill. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7795
Under current legislation, a number of existing offences with penalties apply to rock throwing that results in serious damage or injury. Perpetrators could be charged with attempted murder, manslaughter, maliciously or recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, or reckless wounding and malicious damage, depending on the degree of damage suffered. Those offences all carry strong penalties ranging from five years to 25 years imprisonment. Despite the potential range of offences, it can be difficult to obtain a conviction as the law currently stands. A specific offence targeting rock throwing that results in injury or the loss of life would make it easier to prosecute successfully. In that sense, the amendment bill complements the existing offences that may be brought when physical injury or property damage is caused. It also provides police with another charge to lay in appropriate circumstances.
However, just because nobody is injured should not absolve object throwers from blame and serious consequences under the law. This bill creates a specific offence, punishable by imprisonment for five years, for throwing objects at, or dropping objects on or towards, vehicles or vessels on roads, railways or navigable waters. The act of deliberately throwing rocks at a car when there is the possibility of injuring someone ought to be subject to criminal sanctions. The bill creates such an offence by criminalising the situation even when the perpetrator fails to cause actual physical damage to property or another person. This new offence provides police with another tool to combat rock throwing.
The prosecution has to prove the person intentionally threw an object at, or dropped an object on or towards, a vehicle or vessel that is on any road, railway or navigable waters, that there was a person in the vehicle or vessel, and that the conduct risked the safety of any person. However, it does not have to prove that the object made contact with the vehicle or vessel. The mens rea for this offence is rather convoluted. The prosecution is required to prove that the accused intentionally threw at, or dropped the object on or towards, a vehicle, but not that the accused was aware that his or her conduct risked the safety of any person. This is a somewhat confusing two-step process, where a defendant could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of the fact that their conduct put others in danger, and may therefore not be as morally culpable.
Was it considered that the mens rea of criminal negligence, an objective test that a reasonable person would have been aware that his or her conduct risked the safety of any person, should be required to prove the offence? This offence will be a significant deterrent. However, as many of the offenders are young people it would be wise to push for education and advertising to address the issue. Crime needs to be approached from multiple angles to attack both the cause and its effects on the community. In the circumstances I support the bill and condemn those spineless and idiotic individuals who would seek to cause harm and instil fear in drivers and commuters. The law must deal with them fairly, but firmly.
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.29 p.m.]: I am very pleased that the Government has introduced the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008. It is obvious from listening to other members that rock throwing is prevalent across the State. Throwing rocks at a vehicle is one of the lowest acts. It is cowardly and stupid. It is also extremely dangerous, and the community in my area is completely fed up with this sort of behaviour. When this bill was first mooted I issued a media release that supported moves to substantially increase the penalties available for this crime. I am pleased that the bill introduces a new five-year stand-alone offence for throwing objects at vehicles, trains and vessels.
In the past couple of weeks Hannaford's Coaches in Tamworth has experienced a number of serious incidents involving rock throwing, and I know that other local motorists have been victims of this stupid and dangerous practice. Hannaford's is in the process of reducing its exposure to this sort of crime by changing its timetable to Coledale, and local police from the Oxley Local Area Command have stepped up patrols at the times when Hannaford's buses take kids home after school, when the activity is most prevalent.
I have been working closely with Geoff Searle from Hannaford's to bring about changes that will allow his bus drivers and their passengers, who are our local school students, to travel through Coledale in safety. I sincerely hope that the new legislation will assist us in these attempts. The legislation will make it a crime to throw a rock at a vehicle, regardless of whether or not the offender hits his or her target. There will be no more excuses of "I didn't mean to hit anyone". As soon as an object leaves the person's hand it becomes an offence, and can attract a maximum penalty of five years in jail. Hopefully, these changes will force people to face up to their responsibilities. They will face the prospect of paying the consequences if they cannot maintain acceptable community standards.
The impact on victims can be devastating and extremely traumatic. Recently one of Hannaford's bus windows completely shattered as a result of a rock attack, and a number of school students were covered in 7796 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
glass. It was an absolute miracle that nobody was seriously injured in this incident. Being a former Kiama resident, with my family still living in the town, I am very much aware of the tragic incident in Kiama that resulted in 21-year-old Nicole Miller spending four days in a coma with severe head injuries after the car she was travelling in was struck by a rock. Nicole was the innocent victim of a mindless attack and reportedly remains very traumatised by the attack. I can fully understand her anxiety.
People deserve to be protected from cowardly and stupid behaviour on the part of irresponsible individuals. I hope that toughening up the laws will make people think twice before acting in such a way in the future. The new legislation complements existing laws but provides police with a further charge to lay in appropriate circumstances. People should not escape serious penalties simply because they did not succeed in injuring someone. The act of deliberately throwing an object at a car, bus or train when there is potential to injure someone rightfully should be subject to criminal sanctions. The bill covers the Kiama circumstance where a person intentionally throws or drops a rock on a vehicle or a vessel, even if the person fails to damage any property or harm another person.
The new offence will apply not only to motor vehicles but also to trains, trams, bicycles, and other road users. Even when no damage occurs, the dangers created by rock throwing can create substantial fear among drivers and commuters, as evidenced by Nicole Miller's case. This fear has resulted in Hannaford's deciding to cancel certain services to avoid incidents. Under the bill the definition of "throw" also includes "propel", so that people using slingshots, which, sadly, has happened, and people intentionally kicking objects off overbridges will also be captured by the offence. Should somebody be killed as a result of rock throwing, the offenders can be charged with manslaughter, which carries a 25-year maximum sentence, or even murder, which carries life.
I am also pleased to note that Children's Court magistrates will have tougher laws when dealing with juvenile offenders. I applaud the increased penalties for offences involving throwing objects. This is also a step in the right direction by providing new powers for magistrates to make juvenile offenders undertake vocational and/or behavioural programs as part of community service orders. For some time I have lobbied for magistrates powers to be toughened in this area so they can deal appropriately with offenders whom police put before the courts, because many studies indicate that lack of education and training are significant contributors to offending behaviour. Requiring young offenders to gain training and life skills will provide them with an opportunity to turn their lives around and hopefully participate within the community in a responsible manner, rather than continuing a life of crime. Toughening laws relating to throwing objects at vehicles is long overdue, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [12.33 p.m.]: It is interesting that so many members wish to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008. It is obvious that we have all experienced rock throwing incidents in our electorates.
Mr Andrew Fraser: On the receiving end.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: Yes. There are many overpass bridges in my electorate, such as on the M5 and over the East Hills railway line. Most people driving under these overpasses, especially on freeways, will look up to check whether someone is on an overbridge throwing rocks. People who throw rocks at a vessel, vehicle or cyclist or in a riot, similar to the riots at Macquarie Fields and Redfern, could be sentenced to five years in jail. The bill will act as a deterrent. The member for Epping said that the Government must do more publicity. I acknowledge that offenders are usually young kids, who do not realise the damage that can result from throwing rocks, and they must be educated. However, two famous rock-throwing cases that came before the courts involved mature adults, fathers of children, but the sentences imposed were not proportionate to the damage occasioned.
The Government has taken action. I raised this issue some years ago with the Bankstown Local Area Command when I received complaints from the Bass Hill and Yagoona areas. Ambulance and fire brigade officers were called to incidents that were genuine and to other incidents that were not. Young people, ranging in age from 14 to 30 years, attacked the vehicles with rocks. Vehicles were damaged and several fire brigade and ambulance officers were injured. The Government has taken a whole-of-government approach to tackling these crimes when they have occurred. On many occasions it has set up a special task force or has developed a community action plan similar to the bus safety task force established in the Wilmot area where private buses were targeted. Private buses have also been targeted in Redfern. Other members may wish to talk about what has happened in their electorates. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7797
The Government has sought higher police visibility and security guards have been employed. Safety audits have been undertaken and school programs have been implemented. I know that the member for Wagga Wagga is a great supporter of the police citizens youth clubs, which try to inform young people. I acknowledge that the young who attend those clubs might be some of the better kids. We can do more with greater collaboration by key agencies. Even the union movement has tried to help. The Government has been proactive in introducing the bill and I appreciate the bipartisan support. Just because rock throwing is now an offence does not mean it will cease overnight. However, we have to make sure that people understand they cannot throw rocks, small or large, a brick or a lump of concrete, as a lark.
I remember the case years ago near Campbelltown where a rock was thrown at a fully laden Woolworths semitrailer, which careered off the road causing death and destruction. Young people might say they did not mean to do it, and most juries would agree, but appropriate laws must be in place to deal with the consequences of someone throwing rocks from heights at cars, boats or any vehicle. The damage can have far greater consequences than the person throwing the rock ever thought. That is not the Government's problem—it is the perpetrator's problem. The key is greater education, reinforced with the penalty provisions of this legislation.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [12.38 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008. I would first like to reflect on rock throwing and its dangers within the Coffs Harbour electorate. On numerous occasions I have spoken in this House about the dangers of the Pacific Highway, which is clogged with trucks. There are 30,000 truck movements a week through Coffs Harbour alone, let alone the traffic during holiday periods, especially at Christmas. However, what has dramatically increased has been the lunatic throwing of rocks at vehicles. In fact it has got to the stage that the Roads and Traffic Authority is proclaiming how good it is because it is erecting guards on bridges to ensure that rocks cannot be thrown. To me that signifies that something is really wrong with our society. I agree with the member for Epping that we need some education on this issue, especially for kids, because I do not think they realise the consequences of their actions.
In the early hours of the morning of 5 April one of my constituents from Boambee Graham Weaire was driving a bonded load along the Pacific Highway in Coffs Harbour on his way to Brisbane. Some drunken louts on the side of the road threw a star picket, which is a fencing post, at the truck. Because the load was bonded, no-one could open it until the truck arrived in Brisbane. It turned out that the truck was carrying hazardous goods. Luckily, nothing was pierced, but can members imagine what would have happened if the hazardous goods had been strewn all over the highway between Coffs Harbour and Brisbane or, alternatively, if they had burst at the scene and the problems that would have been created? I am sure that these blokes, who were obviously affected by alcohol, did not understand the consequences of their actions.
We need a strong advertising campaign in schools. I suggest that when police go to schools they stress the dangers of rock throwing and get through to these kids that five years at Her Majesty's pleasure is what they are staring at, as well as other sanctions under legislation, if they commit such an offence. I am sure that the fact that people can be maimed or killed, as in Nicole Miller's case, which has been mentioned many times in this place today, is something they do not consider when they take part in rock throwing. We have all done silly things in our lives, but at the end of the day mixing rocks or star pickets with vehicles can end in absolute disaster: people can be maimed for life or even killed if a truck were to run off the road into a house—some residences in the centre of Coffs Harbour were very close to where the truck was hit. I agree with the member for East Hills that adults are involved, which is totally bizarre, and in such cases I would throw away the key for good. My constituent was going about his business—a fairly dangerous occupation—on a fairly dangerous road, and someone threw a star picket at his vehicle. How lucky was he, the community and everyone else that nothing happened?
I also refer to kids who spend time around railway lines. Warren Skinner owns the Toyota dealership in Coffs Harbour, which, unfortunately, borders the north coast railway line. We have had to spend a huge amount of money putting guardrails not just on the bridge across the Pacific Highway but also behind his business to prevent kids from lobbing rocks on to cars in his car yard. I would like to see the legislation extended to grab people who commit these offences, which is pure malicious damage, and put them away for five years. Hardworking people who invest in our communities, have a great business and employ a lot of people are being affected. Warren does a great amount of work for the community in the Coffs Harbour area, yet here are people targeting him.
We fully support the legislation. We as individuals, but the Government with its resources, should spend money on advertising campaigns to ensure that especially the young people in our community understand 7798 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
the consequences—not just that they can injure or maim people, or damage property, but also that if they are caught there is the chance of their heading off to jail under the legislation. As the member for Miranda interjected some time ago, the money we have to spend putting guardrails on bridges would be far better spent improving their education.
Mr Alan Ashton: Every car would not have to be an armoured vehicle.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the member for East Hills says, no car should be an armoured vehicle, with the exception of Chubb vehicles and the like. I commend the legislation and plead with the Government to back it up with an advertising campaign to get the message across.
Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.46 p.m.]: We all agree that it should not be necessary for us to debate the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008, but unfortunately it is the case that in most electorates the brainless stupidity of some people makes it necessary for the Government to respond, by adding a new section to the Crimes Act to deal with what is a very concerning issue. Rock throwing can cause significant damage to vehicles and cause drivers to fear for their lives. Not one of us who drives a motor vehicle along the highway does not think of it when passing under an overpass. I always look up to make sure that no-one is going to throw anything at my car. At 60 kilometres an hour, a car travels at 16.6 metres per second. At 100 kilometres per hour it travels at 25 to 28 metres per second. That is a deadly speed if someone drops or throws a rock at a vehicle and hits the windscreen at that velocity. It is very dangerous.
There were 15 motor vehicles and one semi-trailer involved in a rock-throwing incident on the edge of my electorate at Raymond Terrace. The driver of the semi-trailer sustained eye damage because a shard of glass entered his eye when the windscreen was broken by a rock. One of the vehicles had a 40-centimetre gash directly under a passenger-door window behind which, within the car, a baby was sleeping. The rock tore off a side mirror. That was a very serious incident and another example of how dangerous rock throwing can be. The mind boggles at what kind of damage could occur.
New section 49A of the Crimes Act provides three elements to the offence. The first is the intentional throwing or dropping of an object towards a motor vehicle. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to commit that act. The second element, a person in the motor vehicle and the third element, the risk of safety, are matters for the court, but the intentional throwing or dropping of an object towards or at a motor vehicle is what the Crown must prove. The other elements, that there was a person in the vehicle and that there was a risk of safety, are objective elements and what prosecutors used to call the "bird in the tree test". When viewed a distance away, is it objectively dangerous? That is the policy behind the Act and it is a sound policy.
I say to all would-be offenders of the new section: If you intentionally throw or drop an object or rock towards a motor vehicle or vessel, that is the only act that is within your control, and if you are proved guilty of that element then the other two elements, out of your control, are objective facts to be viewed by the court. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove that the accused was aware that there was a risk to safety because that is taken out of his hands and viewed objectively. It is also not necessary that the object comes in contact with the vehicle, for very sound reasons, because we want to make sure that the message is clear that anyone intentionally throwing or dropping an object towards a motor vehicle or vessel will face the punishment of the court with a maximum penalty of five years if the other two elements exist. That is the sound policy behind the amendment. I fully support the new section to be added to the Crimes Act to address this unfortunate growing problem, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [12.50 p.m.]: Recently my area has experienced a number of rock-throwing incidents, including rocks and other objects being thrown at local buses. After receiving representations from the Transport Workers Union on behalf of local drivers, I attended a meeting at the local bus depot where I was told of a number of incidents that had put the safety of bus drivers and passengers at risk. I was surprised that drivers had been subjected to a number of rock-throwing and bottle-throwing attacks. I am sure members would agree that all drivers have a right to work in a safe environment, but this reckless activity, perpetrated by a small number of mindless fools, puts the health and safety of drivers and passengers at risk.
The incident that precipitated the meeting involved a rock striking a window just behind a driver, causing the window to break a cut to a passenger in the seat behind the driver. That is totally unacceptable. I promised the drivers that I would organise a meeting of police, local parliamentarians, drivers, union officials and bus management to discuss protocols for dealing with this dangerous practice. The meeting was held at my 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7799
office to discuss how we, as a community, could better deal with this problem. It was a productive meeting that dealt with communication between management, drivers and police when incidents occur. Although this dangerous activity represents only about 3 per cent of criminal activity, its repercussions could be quite serious. Imagine the potentially tragic injury toll if a busload of people crashed into other vehicles or even homes because the driver was injured or distracted.
Following the meeting, the Central Coast Office of the Department of Premier and Cabinet convened a meeting to discuss the incidence of objects being thrown at vehicles, as well as other antisocial behaviours, and developed some short-term strategies to deal with issues identified in particular geographic locations. I acknowledge the participation and support of the member for Swansea, the member for Gosford and the member for The Entrance during that process to ensure an outcome. We have formed a group that will continue to develop longer-term educative strategies to ensure the community receives important information about the dangers of throwing objects and combating other antisocial activity. This kind of thoughtless activity is a community issue and not just the domain of the police. The Government, by introducing legislation such as the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008 to strengthen the law, sends important messages of support to the police, bus drivers and others.
Earlier this year I spoke to some train drivers—who are often forgotten—and I was astounded to learn that they, too, are often targets for attack. They told me that a wide variety of objects, including bicycles, prams, bottles, rocks and even shopping trolleys, had been thrown at them from bridges and from the sides of the tracks. Clearly we must not allow such acts of stupidity to endanger the lives of others. That is why we must send a message to the community that this is a serious matter that could result in injury or death.
Today we have heard a lot about Nicole Miller, a victim of rock throwing, who ended up having part of her skull removed due to the severity of her injuries. It was a well-publicised incident. At that time the Government increased the penalties for rock throwing from 7 to 10 years when the offence is committed by a single person, and from 10 to 14 years jail for each person involved when the offence is committed by a group. Whilst a range of offences can apply to rock-throwing incidents, such as attempted murder or recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, this legislation provides police with an additional charge to lay against rock throwers in certain circumstances.
This is a serious issue and one I am pleased the Government has sought to address, not just by imposing harsher penalties but also by adopting an interagency approach to improve the educative processes, and addressing antisocial behaviour generally. Some members have referred to education, which can be difficult because, as police have pointed out, publicising things sometimes attracts more people to do the wrong thing. In meetings I had with the police it was suggested that letterboxing areas, using school liaison officers, and talking to students in schools in areas where attacks may have occurred was preferable to a general public campaign that might encourage people to do the wrong thing. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.55 p.m.]: The shadow Minister has outlined the position of the Opposition on the Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Bill 2008. When the television image of Nicole Miller was broadcast, and the details of what had occurred revealed, I was absolutely sickened, as all members would have been. Irresponsible acts that occur daily across New South Wales communities endanger the lives of drivers, be they train, bus or car drivers, and such behaviour should not be tolerated. The bill aims to strengthen the law to enable police officers to bring offenders before the court. The bill is long overdue, but I can tell by the enthusiasm expressed by all members that the strengthening of the law is applauded. Wagga Wagga has pockets of young people who are causing absolute havoc to the motoring public. Bus drivers have held community meetings and bus services have even been suspended, which affects everyone, particularly the elderly and those who depend on the public transport system. If the bill helps to bring offenders to heel then it is a measure that members will support.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. Clearly, throwing rocks at vehicles is dangerous and stupid, and police will pursue and charge the idiots who do it: they will face the full force of the law. Rock throwing can cause great damage to vehicles and result in severe injuries and, tragically, as the member for Camden outlined, even death. Some members spoke about education. The New South Wales Police Force will continue to work with schools, young people and the community to educate them and prevent crime. We know that many of the perpetrators of rock throwing are young people who are still at school.
In March 2006 the Iemma Government announced the creation of 40 school liaison officer positions to support and work with New South Wales high schools. By building relationships between police, students and 7800 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
high schools, school liaison police promote the objectives of the New South Wales State Plan: rights, respect and responsibility, through building more harmonious communities and reducing crime rates. Greater rapport between students and police will create a better understanding of the role of police in the community and will blend crime prevention with operational policing. By attending schools and implementing crime prevention workshops, school liaison police will help prevent students from becoming involved in crime or antisocial behaviour. Much is being done in the field of education. Police are talking to high school students, because in many cases it is likely that those involved in rock throwing will be young and still at school.
The member for Davidson referred to the mental element of the offence, or the mens rea—whether the offence should have been an objective test: a reasonable person could have seen that the conduct risked a person's safety. I inform the member that section 49A (1) (c) is an objective test and that element is whether the conduct, viewed objectively, risked the safety of any person. The member for member for Coffs Harbour referred to throwing rocks on to cars in a car yard. The legislation provides that someone be in the vehicle and that the vehicle be on a road, but I point out to the member for Coffs Harbour that that sort of offence is covered by malicious damage and carries a penalty of up to five years imprisonment if tried upon indictment.
The legislation creates a new offence of intentionally throwing an object on or towards a vehicle. It is important to point out that the object is not confined to rocks. The offence even applies in situations where a vehicle is not struck and where nobody is injured. It should be noted that "intentionally" refers to an intentional act of throwing or dropping, so that accidentally dropping an object is not captured by the offence. There is no requirement that the person intended to hit a car. In fact the prosecution does not even have to establish that the accused was aware that his or her conduct risked the safety of any person. What is required is that the conduct, viewed objectively, risked the safety of any person. The new offence comprehensively covers objects thrown or dropped on a full range of vehicles and vessels, including buses, trains, trams, bicycles and animals being ridden.
The Legislation Review Committee considered that five years imprisonment was excessive, but I point out to the Legislation Review Committee that the maximum penalty of five years applies to an offence tried upon indictment. It is a Table 2 offence under the Criminal Procedure Act and, in fact, the police may elect to prosecute the matter summarily before a local court, which would carry a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. There are many possible scenarios, in which an offence could be committed under this provision, and the risk posed by the offender's activity and an offender's culpability may vary greatly from situation to situation. Members on both sides of the House have been positive in their support for the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CLIMATE CHANGE)
Report: Report on Conference Attendance, 12th Annual Conference of Parliamentary Public Works and Environment Committees, Darwin, 19-21 September 2007
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.00 p.m.]: I speak to the first report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management (Climate Change) on the Twelfth Annual Conference of Parliamentary Public Works and Environment Committees, which was held in Darwin last year. Conferences provide valuable opportunities for committee members to learn about issues relevant to their work and to receive exposure to new ideas. I was grateful for the chance to attend the conference with the committee chair, the member for Penrith. The conference theme of "Ancient Knowledge and Science in Contemporary Resource Management" led to a number of interesting sessions on alternative approaches to dealing with the 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7801
complex technical issues of managing land and water resources. One such session was about innovative partnerships. Graham Phelps of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts spoke about the joint management with the indigenous community of the Nitmiluk National Park. This partnership, which began in 1989, is now regarded as a benchmark for joint management.
The Northern Territory also has a policy of whole-of-government partnership with the indigenous community, which includes the development of the Healthy Country Healthy People agreement to increase indigenous involvement in sustainable land and sea management. This policy should lead to other social and economic benefits, such as improved physical health. A presentation by Professor Bruce Campbell of Charles Darwin University discussed the possible benefits to indigenous communities of payments for directly measurable environmental services, such as carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity, watershed protection and landscape beauty. His presentation also identified possible barriers in suggesting a framework for new opportunities presented by such payments. The lessons learnt from this presentation would be helpful for natural resource managers in New South Wales. This issue was directly relevant to the committee's current inquiry into an emissions trading scheme.
I was extremely interested in the reports of other committees about their operations and recent projects. I would not have had time to learn about their reports in any other way. That is why these conferences are so valuable to members, although at first glance they may not seem relevant to our constituencies. As law and policy makers, it is important that we are encouraged to look beyond our constituencies because we deal with diverse legislation that is relevant to the whole State. This conference was most valuable to me in that regard. The committee's report may be short, but it provides a reasonable overview of the conference proceedings. It is the first of three reports that the committee plans to complete this year. I record my appreciation of the work of the staff of the Northern Territory's Legislative Assembly in organising the conference. I hope that the 2008 conference, which we will host in Sydney from 23 to 25 July, runs as smoothly. I also thank Les Gönye for his assistance.
Mr Daryl Maguire: A hardworking Clerk.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: A hardworking Clerk, indeed. I thank him for his assistance to the committee and at the conference.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 5 of 2008
Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 6 of 2008
Question—That the House take note of the reports—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [1.05 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to comment on the National Gas Bill 2008, which was reported in Legislation Review Digest No. 5 on 5 May 2008. I supported this bill, which gives effect to the Council of Australian Governments' commitments, ratified under the Australian Energy Market Agreement. However, under the terms of the agreement, the national energy legislation operates under a national cooperative legislative scheme in which South Australia is the lead legislator. New South Wales and other States and Territories and the Commonwealth have agreed to apply the relevant schedules of the South Australian legislation in their respective jurisdictions through application Acts. The National Gas Bill applies those laws. The national gas legislation is made up of the National Gas Law, the National Gas Rules and Regulations, which are made under the National Gas Law, and the Acts applying those laws in each jurisdiction.
The Minister for Water, in his agreement in principle speech on 10 April 2008, said that the objective of the National Gas Law is to promote the efficient investment and use of gas services in the long-term interests of consumers. The Australian Energy Market Agreement commits States and Territories to transfer responsibility for the economic regulation of gas distribution pipelines from State-based regulators to the Australian Energy Regulator [AER]. The Minister said that the bill has the effect of transferring responsibility from the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal to the Australian Energy Regulator. 7802 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Responsibility for economic regulation of gas transmission pipelines in New South Wales has already been transferred to the Competition and Consumer Commission and that responsibility will now be moved to the AER. A single national body will now be responsible for the economic regulation of both gas transmission and distribution pipelines in New South Wales and in all other participating jurisdictions. Under clause 6.4 of the agreement each party is required to ensure its legislation is enacted in the approved form. The approved form is that of the lead legislator, which is South Australia. Each party has agreed not to take any action that would limit, vary or alter the effect, scope or operation of the Australian Energy Market legislation without the agreement of the Ministerial Council on Energy.
The core provision of the bill is contained in part 2, which applies as a law in New South Wales the National Gas Law as set out in the schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia, as well as regulations made under that law. A copy of the National Gas Law was set out in a note at the end of the bill. The bill was the subject of scrutiny by the Legislation Review Committee. The committee noted that under the legislative scheme adopted in this bill, each State, Territory and the Commonwealth applies the National Gas Law, as it is in force currently, set out in the schedule to the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 of South Australia, as well as regulations made under that law. That law is applied as a law of New South Wales. In the committee's view, that scheme gave rise to the question of whether the applied law is insufficiently subject to scrutiny by the New South Wales Parliament, particularly as any changes made by the South Australian legislature to this law automatically flow through and become part of the law of New South Wales.
As a result of an examination of the background of the legislation, which is fully set out in the committee's report, the committee concluded that, in the committee's view, the need for national oversight and coordination on energy policy and practice provides adequate justification for the legislative arrangements that have been developed. One suggestion the committee makes is that it would be an advantage if the New South Wales Parliament could be given an earlier opportunity, possibly through an exposure draft, to express its views on future national scheme legislation rather than have it presented for adoption in a final form that has already been agreed to or implemented by the Commonwealth and the other Australian States. This appears to be a positive suggestion that will hopefully be followed up in the context of any further national schemes.
The role of the committee is a difficult one in that we are required to comment within five days on every bill presented to the Parliament. While this is an onerous task, the committee, with the invaluable assistance of the committee manager and support staff, manages to examine each bill and provide comment through the Legislation Review Digest within the time allocated. Generally, all members of the committee unanimously endorse the comments made, and each member takes this responsibility very seriously. It is rewarding to observe many members of both Houses utilising the comments provided. However, I am somewhat disappointed that certain members are critical of the committee when comments reported in the digest are not in accordance with the position the member may take on particular legislation. For instance, I note that in the other place Lee Rhiannon supported the committee's comments in its report on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Car Hoons) Bill 2008. She stated:
The Greens also highlight the concern raised by the Legislation Review Committee, which noted that the increased penalties in this bill could be regarded as too severe, with the penalties for those who gather to watch others comparable with the penalties proposed for those who actually do burnouts, and those penalties being comparable, and in some cases greater, than the penalty for serious drink-driving.
The committee believed this could constitute an undue trespass on personal rights and liberties, and referred the matter to Parliament.
She went on to say that the committee "came down with some really sensible advice on this bill." But then she added:
… that advice is not articulated by those same people in this Parliament. That is so wrong; there is such a clear double standard.
It has to be emphasised that the role of the committee is to highlight the matters set out in the Legislation Review Act 1987. Part of section 8A states:
(1) The functions of the Committee with respect to Bills are:
(a) to consider any Bill introduced into Parliament, and
16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7803
(b) to report to both Houses of Parliament as to whether any such Bill, by express words or otherwise:
(i) trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties, or
(ii) makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers, or
(iii) makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non- reviewable decisions, or
(iv) inappropriately delegates legislative powers, or
(v) insufficiently subjects the exercise of legislative power to Parliamentary scrutiny.
Accordingly, I believe the committee fulfils its role. Notwithstanding the fact that the issues, as outlined, are identified in the committee's reports, it does not follow that committee members must adhere to those comments when debating legislation. The committee's role in identifying issues but leaving them for the Parliament to determine is most appropriate. There are times when it is proper for legislation to be enacted, despite the issues the committee may identify. When I last spoke about committee reports, the member for Wagga Wagga mentioned that the committee reports "have changed in structure and are less controversial than they were a number of years ago". That was a somewhat disappointing commentary, particularly when all members work very hard to present reports within the time constraints. It is not our role to be controversial, as the member for Wagga Wagga suggests; it is our role to be informative for members within the restrictions of the terms of reference outlined in the Legislation Review Act 1987 and, hopefully, to assist members formulate a position in relation to the bills presented.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [1.14 p.m.]: Firstly I commend the chairman of the committee for his well-considered and succinct contribution. Last week I made the comment that he referred to because I thought that the reports I had read were less controversial than others, and I stand by that. When I looked at report No. 6 I could see that the committee had done its job and had raised issues of concern—which is the role of the committee—and I congratulate the chairman on that. I have read the report and I consider it to be very beneficial for members of this House. I note that nine bills were considered. Members use the information contained in the digest during debates. The next big issue the committee will have to deal with is legislation concerning the planning and sale of electricity. That was mentioned in this place yesterday, and the Premier placed documents on the table.
The member for Londonderry mentioned that time within which to consider legislation is limited to only five days brought the legislation is brought before Parliament. I believe that puts the committee at a disadvantage, particularly in relation to very complex pieces of legislation. For example, yesterday when the Premier placed the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill 2008 and the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 on the table, members did not understand that, by proposed legislation being laid on the table, it is available for members to access it in the parliamentary procedure office and obtain a precis of the provisions in the bill. What that procedure does not allow to happen, and I think the Premier was remiss in not doing this, was introduction of the bills, thus allowing the committee an opportunity to review them. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Community Infrastructure Intergenerational Fund Bill 2008 and the Electricity Industry Restructure Bill 2008.
Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The member for Wagga Wagga's remarks have strayed from the leave of the two Legislation Review Digest reports we are discussing. He is now seeking to introduce future legislation that has not been discussed in the reports. That is not the subject of the review. I suggest he is out of order and you should bring him back—
Mr Andrew Fraser: It is still relevant to the committee.
Mr Steve Whan: In regard to the interjection, the point is that we are noting the existing committee reports, not pre-empting future committee reports and what the committee might consider. I suggest, Mr Assistant-Speaker, you should rule him out of order.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: To the point of order: I am reflecting on the comments of the chair of the committee who said that the committee was having difficulty with the five-day period. I am trying to demonstrate with this report and others that may be placed before the committee that the committee has a difficult role when it has limited time. I believe it is important to have access to information such as this and to have it in Hansard so the public can see and understand the complexities of a bill that is going to be put before the committee. 7804 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. I have sought advice. The standing orders do not provide for the member for Wagga Wagga to incorporate the bills.
Leave not granted.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: It is regrettable that the member for Bathurst and the member for Monaro would not allow me to table that.
Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: Mr Assistant-Speaker, you clearly ruled that leave to incorporate the bills is not within the provisions of standing orders. It is not a question of whether or not this side of the House wishes to let the member for Wagga Wagga lay something on the table. It is not within the rules of this House for him to do so.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Wagga Wagga will confine his remarks to committee reports.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: I will. What I am suggesting is that legislation should be laid upon the table—as I seek to do for members' edification—to give members time to consider it. If members have trouble accessing the bills, I have copies. I will leave copies in my office for all members of the upper House and the lower House as well as members of the public who might want to look at the future legislation that this committee will have to review. It is important legislation that people should be given time to consider. I agree with the chairman's comments that five days is not sufficient time to allow the committee to give a considered response.
Question—That the House take note of the reports—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Reports noted.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Board of Adult and Community Education Repeal Bill 2008 Education Amendment Bill 2008 Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2008 Higher Education Amendment Bill 2008 Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill 2008 Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2008
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! It being almost 1.30 p.m., the House will proceed to private members' statements.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.
DEATH OF MR ARTHUR EDWARD LINDSAY WILSON
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [1.20 p.m.]: Today I pay tribute to the late Ted Wilson, Mayor of Blayney, who passed away last weekend. Arthur Edward Lindsay Wilson—to give him his full title—was mayor at the time of his death. Eight or nine months ago he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, he fought a valiant battle, and he literally worked as mayor until the end. Ted will be greatly missed by his community. I offer my sympathy to Betty, his wife of 41 years, to his sons Mark and Rex, and to his extended family. Ted was one of those larger-than-life characters. Twenty-odd years ago he moved to the country from Sydney. A former electrician, he set up a successful rural irrigation business that has been carried on by his son. Ted became involved in community life and, as happens with many people, that led to his becoming involved in local government. After being elected to council in a by-election on 20 May 1993, he served as deputy mayor for two terms. In September 2005 he was elected mayor, and he continued in that role until his death.
Ted's main passions were the two Ts: tourism and transport. At his property at Neville he had a bed and breakfast business based around a railway museum, where train carriages were decked out as accommodation. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7805
Ted, who was very involved in tourism, saw the benefits that tourism could bring to the economies of towns like Blayney and the Central West. Until recently Ted was the chairman of Inland Tourism and president of the Inland Tourism Awards, and he was one of the driving forces in establishing the awards in 2004. Ted remained chairman of Inland Tourism until he retired in 2007. Ted's dedication to tourism is legendary. At the 2007 New South Wales Tourism Awards his peers acknowledged him for his commitment and dedication to regional tourism.
Like anyone involved in local government, Ted was passionate about transport and was particularly active as chairman of the Sydney Road Links Committee, which comprises councils in the Central West that have been campaigning for many years for improved links across the Blue Mountains. He was also involved and had a great input in the Bells Line of Road Committee. Ted was heavily involved in the establishment of the regional saleyards facility at Carcoar, which is located in Blayney shire. That $17 million state-of-the-art facility replaced the saleyards at Blayney, Bathurst and Orange. He was also involved in the Heritage Park Adventure Playground, which I will have the pleasure of opening in a week or so. It is sad that Ted will not be present at that event.
Ted played a major role in bridge replacement projects in the shire, which involved upgrading Browns Creek Road and Adelaide Street. Ted left a number of legacies. He was instrumental in establishing the Bathurst to Blayney bicycle race, which now attracts more than 1,000 entrants, the Blayney Billycart Bash, the Blayney markets and the Blayney Longtrack Motorbike Championship titles. The Australian longtrack motorbike titles were held in Blayney in 2007. All those great community initiatives involve an element of tourism. Ted was a great supporter of wheelchair athlete Kurt Fearnley. Recently, he made Kurt the first-ever freeman of the shire and named a park at Carcoar after him. Ted will be greatly missed by everyone in public life and in local government, and I know that his family will feel his loss keenly. Everyone in the Blayney shire will miss Ted because he was "Mr Blayney": his heart went out to anyone who had a problem. We will miss Ted Wilson.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.25 p.m.]: I join the member for Bathurst in offering the condolences of this House to the family of Ted Wilson—Betty and her children. I am sure that all country members are aware of and appreciate the hard work that country mayors do for their communities.
TWEED HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [1.25 p.m.]: Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. Today I refer to yet another appalling experience in the New South Wales public health system: Michael and Kathleen Devlin's encounter with the Tweed Hospital emergency department. In late February this year Michael Devlin began feeling very unwell and, as a precaution, visited his local general practitioner to receive his six-monthly needle to check the condition of his prostate. On the evening of 23 February Mr Devlin's condition deteriorated and his wife became extremely worried when she discovered that he had a high temperature and severe stomach pains; he was unable to urinate. That night she decided that her husband had to be seen by a doctor and she promptly called an ambulance.
Upon arrival his at the Tweed Hospital emergency department a nurse questioned Mr Devlin to establish why he had come to the hospital in an ambulance when his wife could have driven him. Mr Devlin was under the impression that the nurse was suggesting that his condition was not serious enough to warrant an ambulance, and that he did not require emergency treatment. The nurse then directed him to the waiting room, where he spent the next few hours visiting the toilet every few minutes in an attempt to urinate. When he was eventually called in for treatment he was in such pain that he was shivering and disoriented.
When emergency department staff finally saw him, a drip was inserted to restore fluid to his body. Staff informed the couple that Mr Devlin was suffering from an infection and, upon examining his prostate, confirmed that it was enlarged. After monitoring his temperature and blood pressure and writing a letter for his general practitioner, staff discharged Mr Devlin from the Tweed Hospital emergency department in the early hours of 24 February. Over the next 24 hours his condition failed to improve and he was still unable to urinate. On 25 February his wife drove him to the John Flynn emergency department, where staff immediately examined him and inserted a device into his prostate to empty his bladder before admitting him to a ward.
John Flynn emergency department staff members were bewildered by the fact that the Tweed Hospital emergency department had discharged him in that condition. Mr Devlin's condition was so severe that the doctor had to wait four days for the prostate infection to clear before he could commence operating. Mr and Mrs Devlin's treatment at the Tweed Hospital emergency department is unacceptable. I appreciate that hospital 7806 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
staff are under constant pressure from a growing number of admissions to the emergency department, but that does not mean they can treat people so recklessly. Mr Devlin displayed obvious symptoms of prostate infection and was in excruciating pain but he did not receive the required level of treatment from Tweed Hospital emergency department staff.
I do not seek to lay the blame for his ordeal on hospital staff, as I know they do their best with the limited resources at their disposal. That was made perfectly clear to me at the Special Commission of Inquiry into Acute Care Services in New South Wales Public Hospitals when many staff members from Tweed Hospital came before Commissioner Peter Garling, SC, to voice their concerns about the hospital's lack of funding, staff and other vital resources. The blame for the poor level of public health in New South Wales sits squarely with the Minister for Health and NSW Health bureaucrats.
The Tweed is practically screaming out for more health funding to cope with the huge population growth in the area. We simply cannot cope with the existing level of funding. The situation is already dire, with many patients being placed in corridors rather than being admitted to wards, as the hospital is constantly operating in excess of 100 per cent bed occupancy. The hospital has even stated that it operates at 108 per cent, mainly using the corridor wards, which has become a new term in the Tweed. We need more funding to address these issues and to ensure that Michael Devlin's experience at the Tweed hospital emergency department is not replicated. Once again, I am 100 per cent committed to the Tweed.
SWANSEA ELECTORATE SCHOOLS CAPITAL WORKS
Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [1.30 p.m.]: Today I speak on the importance of a well-structured and resourced education system and the importance that this system plays in ensuring a rich and wealthy society. It is no accident and lost on no-one that those societies with rigorous and dynamic education systems also have the highest standards of living and are best placed to fight the challenges of the future—issues such as crime to climate change, health to housing requirements, poverty eradication, and environment to industry needs. Today I will explain to the House some exciting developments that the Minister for Education and Training, John Della Bosca, and the New South Wales Department of Education and Training have taken to ensure that education is best delivered in the Swansea electorate. These initiatives have come in the form of many of many millions of dollars of capital works programs for Swansea schools.
The most outstanding of these initiatives has been the completion of the Belmont High School gymnasium. This $3.7 million project is a magnificent new building that includes a multipurpose court, toilets, change rooms and showers, first-aid room and equipment stores. The addition will provide space for sports, personal development, health and physical education classes, as well as class activities. It will also be integrated for community use. Belmont High is also well known for its creative arts programs and the new gym will be a great place for rehearsals and performances. Belmont High School is one of three high schools in my electorate and has been educating Hunter students for the past 50 years. It has a history of high sporting and academic achievement. In 2004 it was the subject of an unfortunate arsonist attack. Sixteen classrooms were severely damaged in that attack. The classrooms have been restored and are now quality teaching spaces.
Floraville Primary School will benefit from a multimillion-dollar expansion and refurbishment. The 40-year-old school will benefit from six newly refurbished classrooms, a new hall, library, staff room and computer room. A lift will be installed to enable access for people with disabilities to the library and computer room. The additions have been welcomed by teachers, parents and students, and will commence in September of this year. Belmont High and Floraville public schools are not the only schools receiving Government grants to improve infrastructure. In fact, $733,000 is being invested in schools in my electorate in this fiscal period for maintenance and improvement projects. This includes Caves Beach Public School receiving an upgrade of a road and pedestrian access; Redhead Public School receiving a toilet, a shower change facility for students with a disability, improved ramping and covered walkways; and Valentine Public School receiving an upgrade of toilet facilities. Painting and beautification works will also be carried out at Belmont North Public School, Floraville Public School, Nords Wharf Public School, Swansea Public School and Valentine Public School.
The Better Building Schools Program is the State's largest-ever school building program, with highlights that include an additional $280 million over four years for upgrades to existing schools; upgrading 800 science laboratories at 155 schools, at a cost of $145 million; upgrading food technology facilities at 31 schools, at a cost of $21million; constructing 27 school halls, at a cost of $61.1 million; constructing of 17 gymnasiums, at a cost of $54.4m; upgrading 200 toilet block facilities, at a cost of $22 million; installing 200 new security fences, at a cost of $39 million; and building nine new schools across the State. This is an impressive list, however, there is more to be done. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7807
I especially mention Gwandalan Public School, where new classrooms are required and old demountables need replacement. In Lake Munmorah, where the Lake Munmorah High School, Lake Munmorah Public School and St Brendan's School converge, traffic and access and egress problems require attention. However, I am sure all members will agree that this record investment in New South Wales and the Swansea electorate will go a long way to ensuring that our youngsters and youth will get the education they deserve. That will ensure their prosperity and the community's prosperity will grow well into the future.
OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [1.35 p.m.]: Ovine Johne's disease [OJD] is a wasting disease that affects sheep, goats and other ovine animals. It is present across the world in both domestic and wild populations, but in Australia its main impact is on domestic sheep and goats. The disease is spread by bacteria being shed in animal faeces. Animals can be infected by contact with pastures, water and contaminated teats. It is a difficult disease to eradicate, as the bacteria can remain viable for months in a shaded environment. Although it has been tried, no country has been able to eradicate ovine Johne's disease. There is no cure for ovine Johne's disease. Sheep usually become infected as lambs and start to shed the bacteria before signs of sickness begin to show at two to three years of age. If infected, an animal will usually die within three to six months. If the disease is left unattended graziers can expect mortality rates of about 10 per cent, but some properties in the Burrinjuck electorate experience reported infection rates of up to 40 per cent during the height of this Government's attempts to eradicate the disease, starting some 10 years ago.
I first raised the issue of ovine Johne's disease in this place in September 1999, and I have represented the very real concerns of my constituents about this disease on many occasions and in many forums since then. ovine Johne's disease can be controlled. The Gudair vaccine is readily available now. It took a very long and hard fight—starting with Minister Amery, who failed miserably to understand the gravity of the Government's disastrous ovine Johne's disease eradicative policy—to make this Government see sense and make the vaccine readily available to graziers who wanted to inoculate their flocks. In the electorate of Burrinjuck the use of the vaccine has been very successful. A sample of five properties in the Yass district in 2001 showed that the average infection rate was 20 per cent, with the highest being 38 per cent and the lowest being 9 per cent. In 2006, the same properties were surveyed and it was found that the average infection rate was just 1 per cent, with a range of 1.7 per cent to 0.1 per cent.
During 2007, in the Young Rural Lands Protection Board area alone, almost 232,000 doses of the vaccine were purchased, despite significant de-stocking due to the ongoing drought. When it was first made readily available, the gudair vaccine cost producers $1.65 a dose. Since then the cost has increased to $2.20—an increase of 33 per cent. However, severe financial pressure caused by the ongoing drought has made the purchase of the vaccine very difficult for many farmers. They have spoken to me expressing concern that we could see a resurgence of the disease because of falling vaccination rates. Late last year I wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries urging him to introduce a subsidy for the purchase of the vaccine. I renew my call today. The Minister has replied to me saying that a subsidy would have to have the clear support of the industry before it was implemented. Earlier this year I called for producers to indicate their support for this proposal and I have received a strong response in favour of the subsidy. The Australian Poll Dorset Association, New South Wales Committee, wrote to me saying:
With the ever-present drought, and the current economic times for farmers, and the significant rise in the cost of purchasing the vaccine, it would be disastrous if sheep producers stopped using the vaccine. So we urge the State Government to consider the implementation of a subsidy for the OJD Gudair vaccine.
I met with Mr Rob Churchill, a veterinarian from Crookwell, who told me that as the drought continues more and more farmers are unable to continue funding ovine Johne's disease programs in their flocks. These are farmers who have been strong supporters of vaccination and have a sound understanding of ovine Johne's disease control and disease management. But now they just cannot afford the vaccine. Deputy Mayor of Upper Lachlan Council and sheep grazier James Wheelwright wrote to me saying:
This is just a letter of support for your endeavours in seeking a subsidy for Gudair to control OJD. I fully support the subsidies for the equine flu outbreak and find it unjust that both diseases were brought about by a failure in quarantine. Yet the State quickly announced compensation for the horse industry but made the sheep producers self fund.
Leigh and Mary Waters also wrote to me saying:
We run a self-replacing Merino flock, breeding 1500 lambs per year. We have been using Gudair vaccine since 2001 & are now a fully vaccinated flock. The cost of the vaccine has increased from $1.65 to $2.20 per head.
7808 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
We feel that unless some form of assistance (in the form of a subsidy) is not forthcoming, Merino lamb breeders will cease vaccinating with Gudair & all the hard work that has been done by breeders will have been futile.
We support you in every endeavour to obtain a subsidy for this vaccine.
These are only some of the many submissions I have received for the introduction of a subsidy for the ovine Johne's disease vaccine. I have written to the Minister for Primary Industries forwarding these, and all the other submissions, and I look forward to his response. He was very quick to announce assistance for the thoroughbred racing industry during the equine influenza outbreak. I call on him to heed community and industry calls for a subsidy for the gudair vaccine because there is a very real possibility that, given the increase in the cost of the gudair vaccine, people will stop inoculating their flocks. That will only lead to further disaster for the industry. I encourage the Hon. Ian Macdonald to heed this call and urgently provide the subsidies so that the citizens of Burrinjuck electorate can properly control the disease with the use of gudair vaccine.
SALVADOR ALLENDE BIRTH CENTENARY
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [1.40 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House a series of events to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Salvador Allende. This is a matter of significant interest to a number of my constituents, especially those from a Chilean background and those interested in progressive politics. This is attested to by the fact that a number of my constituents are involved in organising events celebrating this centenary and in an organisation called the Salvador Allende Centenary Committee. I attended an event on Saturday 5 April that was part of these commemorations. There will be other events, including a presentation of awards to winners of a poster exhibition in the Parliamentary Theatrette on 24 June.
Salvador Allende was born in Valparaiso, Chile in 1908. He commenced studying medicine at university in 1926. Whilst a student he became politically engaged and was involved in street rioting that led to the fall of President Carlos Ibanez in 1931. Following the end of the Socialist Republic of Marmaduke Grove he was arrested but, five trials later, walked free. He was a founder of the Chilean Socialist Party in 1933. He campaigned for the subsequent popular front coalition and was for a brief time Minister for Health in 1939. He became Secretary General in the Socialist Party in 1943. He stood unsuccessfully for President of Chile in 1952, 1958 and 1968. In 1970 as candidate of Unidad Popular, he was elected President of Chile. He died on 11 September 1973 as a result of the bloody fascist coup of the butcher Pinochet.
These matters are, and were, important to Chileans and Chilean Australians. They had a much wider resonance however. When Pinochet was arrested in England it attracted comment in this Parliament by the then Premier. Geoffrey Robertson in Crimes Against Humanity points out not just that the law should punish a butcher and torturer like Pinochet, but that because of that case, international law will never be the same again. Allende, in that sense, casts a very long shadow. I note in passing that Michelle Bachelet, the current President of Chile, and her family were victims of the 1973 coup and spent some time in Australia as refugees.
For my generation of the Left, Allende was an icon, an extraordinarily courageous political campaigner with a radical and far-reaching program, which he was pursuing by electoral strategies. Then his democratic challenge was smashed by brute military force. Many of us listened to many hours of Inti Illimani and Quilapayun and the songs of Victor Jara, the great songwriter whose hands were cut off by the fascists in the stadium of Santiago. I remember the marches and the chants—El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido. We voraciously read. I had pleasure at the April function in quoting from one of the books I bought when a student—a Penguin collection of Allende's speeches entitled Chile's Road to Socialism.
We also read the Regis Debray collection entitled Conversations with Allende, despite some people criticising Debray for having subsequently sold out. I note Debray's recent autobiography Praised be our lords has a positive assessment of Allende, despite Debray's transition. Debray makes the astute point that the Chilean fascists did not allow Allende's body to be photographed after death in the way that Che Guevara's was in Bolivia in 1967 for obvious reasons. As I said at the function, Allende was a very great figure for the Chilean Socialist Party, for Unidad Popular and for Chile. He was also a very great figure for the whole world, or certainly for those of us interested in egalitarian societies and social justice. It is for those reasons that the centenary of his birth is being celebrated in Liverpool and in other parts of Sydney. I conclude, I think appropriately, by quoting from Companero Allende's final words, broadcast shortly before his death in the coup. He stated:
Compatriots, I take leave of you. The air force is bombing the radio towers, but I will not resign. Placed in this historical timewarp, I will pay with my life for my people's loyalty, telling you that conscience will not be blindfolded for ever. They have 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7809
the power, and they will dominate us, but social progress cannot be halted by criminal force. History is ours, determined by you the people. Defend but do not sacrifice yourselves. Do not let yourselves be humiliated, do not for my sake let yourselves be crushed or murdered. I have faith in the destiny of Chile, to rise above this grey and bitter moment when treason prevails. Sooner rather than later free men and women will walk our avenues full of trees to construct a better society. These are my last words. I die knowing that there will come a moral law to punish the felony and the cowardice and the treason.
WENTWORTH ESTATE AND CURRAWONG RETREAT
Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [1.45 p.m.]: I tell two stories of two pieces of iconic bushland on facing sides of my community at Pittwater. On Pittwater's eastern foreshores stands the former Wentworth Estate, comprising almost one hectare of natural bushland and cultural landscapes, including original cottages, and the remains of a jetty well over 100 years old. On the western foreshores sits Currawong Beach, whose natural setting and cultural significance has been recognised as State and local heritage—two properties, both iconic, precious, quintessentially Pittwater. Yet, while their natural features are similar, the Government treats their owners very differently.
For the past 20 years, the main house and garden of the Wentworth Estate has been the home of one local lady, who has sought to preserve this special piece of paradise, despite the efforts of many speculative developers to get her to move out. Rather than welcoming her efforts to preserve this beautiful bushland site, the Government has done its level best to force her from her home. Due to the application of premium property tax between 1998 and 2004, she has been left with a land tax bill of $471,881.15. Having just paid off her mortgage, she is being charged an interest rate of 14.37 per cent per year. She is struggling just to pay the interest.
At 75 years old, she has no choice but to continue to work full time to pay off a tax bill inflicted by the Labor Government for the privilege of staying in her own home. To rub salt into the wound, the tax she is paying has been revoked, so that a new owner would have no tax at all to pay. At the same time, she pays the Lands Department $5,959 for a permissive occupancy over foreshore land, where local fishermen tie up their boats and families have picnics. She loves having the public use the land, but why should she have to pay for access when others do not? I should add that her bill for the permissive occupancy has risen by more than $1,000 per year for each of the last three years.
What of the owner of the iconic Currawong site? It is owned by Unions New South Wales. Currawong is a far bigger site than the house on the Wentworth Estate and is far more valuable. Yet, according to a little known provision of the Land Tax Management Act 1956, land owned in trust for Unions New South Wales, such as Currawong, is exempt from the payment of land tax. Yet Unions New South Wales and their joint venture partner invoke "private property rights" to justify their plans to subdivide Currawong after avoiding liability for millions of dollars of land tax over more than 50 years.
It is a bit rich for the unions and the developers to claim that private property rights give them the right to develop Currawong as they please, when they have avoided paying more than half a century of land tax. Everyone else in Pittwater has to pay tax; what makes the unions so special? At the same time as the unions pay no tax and plan to wreck Currawong, the owner of the Wentworth Estate on the other side of Pittwater is facing a tax bill of more than $470,000 yet is trying to preserve her piece of waterfront bushland. Frankly, it stinks that a 75-year-old lady is facing a land tax bill of almost $500,000, with interest of more than 14 per cent per annum, for preserving her bushland home, while the unions pay no tax on Currawong, and have got a fast-track to the Minister for Planning to subdivide it for a windfall gain.
The unions were given a tax exemption on the basis that they would hold land like Currawong for the public benefit. Now that they are trying to develop Currawong for private profit, they should pay back the tax that everyone else has to pay. It is simple injustice that one 75-year-old woman has to pay this Government monstrous land tax bills to preserve her piece of Pittwater paradise and assist the public interest, when Unions New South Wales has enjoyed a free ride on land tax at Currawong for the past 60 years, and now seeks to exploit this piece of Pittwater paradise for private gain. It is colossal injustice between the powerful and the powerless, facing each other across a still beautiful Pittwater. It is time for the Government to sit up and see the consequences of its policies on ordinary people and natural places.
LAKE MACQUARIE CRIME STATISTICS
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [1.50 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I recognise the efforts of local police in the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command. Recently the independent Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research produced some impressive figures for the area. There has been significant stabilisation, 7810 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
indeed, record falls in three categories of crime: robbery with a weapon not a firearm, down 30.8 per cent; break and enter, non-dwelling, down 20.7 per cent; and stealing from a motor vehicle, down 11.5 per cent. This requires solid commitment and hard work from the local police. Although these are significant decreases, crime-related behaviour continues across the board.
Nevertheless it is worth taking this opportunity to recognise our local police, with whom I regularly spend time on the job, and I would encourage members of this House to do likewise. Spending time doing a shift with general duties officers gives you a very clear appreciation of the issues that our local police face, and the work that is involved in administering policing efforts. It also highlights the pressures that our local officers are under and can only be of benefit to members in this place to help them remain in touch and understand what our police are dealing with day in and day out. It is also worth noting that the Government has put enormous energy into additional police recruitment, and certainly the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command has been the beneficiary of more officers coming on board. Having talked to local police, I know that they very much appreciate our support and our commitment to better resourcing and equipment for police to function properly.
I take this opportunity to refer to one officer I spent time with. I will not put his full name on the record but will refer to him as Nick—his pet name is "the Moof"—a lovely gentleman who is very committed to his policing work. He is attached to the local command highway patrol unit. Spending time with the highway patrol is certainly an eye opener and something all members should take the opportunity to do. One key issue for the local area command is accommodation for police, that is, police stations. At the moment the local area command has quite a fragmented structure and a number of stations. Some of those do not function as 24-hour open-door police stations. The highway patrol is effectively only that, a highway patrol, and has very little open-door interaction with the community. The administration centre, where the local area commander and other officers are based, is in a separate location.
In the longer term—and I know our local police are very keen on this—we need to think about major purpose-built headquarters for police in that command. We are having discussions currently with the Minister, who has been very supportive of a review of the structure of stations and resources to ensure greater efficiency and support for police. We have previously discussed the concept of a major station or headquarters at Glendale, which makes sense given the geographical difficulties of the command. I have previously referred to Charlestown station and some work has progressed on improving facilities there, but by the same token we have a lot more to do. I hope that my contribution this afternoon supports the push and that we get better infrastructure in place to support our wonderful local police.
COFFS HARBOUR CANCER CARE
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [1.55 p.m.]: I wish to draw attention to cancer care in Coffs Harbour by reading from a letter sent to me by Arthur Chipper on 7 December last year. He states in the letter:
This year (Feb.) I had to go to Brisbane's Greenslopes Hosp. for radiographic cancer surgery. In April, it was John Flynn Hosp., Gold Coast, for 5 weeks radiotherapy.
Now I face a re-run of the same soap opera. More radiotherapy is needed. No hope of treatment at Coffs unit until (they're very sorry) mid-March.
With the busy help of NCCI's coordinator I am now booked into the Royal Brisbane—7 Jan-26 Feb. For which I am very grateful, but 5 weeks in hot Brisbane, with yet no prospect of accommodation we can afford!
I wrote to the Minister on 13 December 2007 and again on 13 March 2008 when we had not received a response. On 24 April I received a response from the Hon. Verity Firth, who said:
I am advised by Mr Chris Crawford, Chief Executive of NCAHS, that at the present time the Radiotherapy Service at Coffs Harbour does not treat head and neck, brain, paediatrics, gynaecology, skin, complex lung and lymphoma cancers.
After making representations locally as well as to the Minister I heard again from Mr Chipper stating that on 17 January he got a call from the North Coast Cancer Institute setting up a radiotherapy planning session for 24 January; two weeks treatment commenced on 18 February and ended on 3 March; there was a follow-up appointment on 27 March—"satisfied with my radiotherapy. For myself: very grateful and impressed". On one hand, we have the North Coast Area Health Service saying he cannot be treated—with my representations locally and to the Minister and a very late response from the Minister saying he cannot be treated—and he was treated. 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7811
We are told on a regular basis—and I quote from a letter from Dr Ned Abraham in January—that in Coffs Harbour if you want radiotherapy for prostate cancer you wait 44 weeks; for breast cancer, 13 weeks; for radical other—lung, bladder, adjuvant rectal, stomach, oesophagus, haematology—you wait 20 weeks; and for palliative, four weeks. It is obvious that we need a second linear accelerator. We need the skin cancer machine that they paid over $300,000 for to be turned on. People are being forced out of my electorate to Brisbane, Sydney, and right across the State, to get treatment that could be provided locally. We have the specialists and everything else, but we do not have the funding from the Government to put in $2 million for another machine. We have wonderful, willing, dedicated staff, and Mr Chipper commented in his correspondence to me about what great staff they are. I have another email of 28 February and a follow-up letter of 13 May from Dagmar, who said this:
Thank you for your recent correspondence dated March 8 and April 10 regarding the Oncology unit. It is really critical that this matter is pursued on behalf of the Cancer sufferers on the mid north coast of which there are too many. My letter of concern was not just about the staffing levels, it was also to ask you to please go into bat with the Hon. Reba Meagher MP for another radiation machine which Coffs already has the room set aside for. We really need a 2nd Radiotherapy machine as well as extra staff in this unit and the Chemotherapy unit as soon as possible.
This is to ensure that cancer sufferers are not forced to go away from their families to Sydney or Brisbane for 6 weeks or longer for treatment when the treatment is traumatic enough as it is. I was very lucky that deciding to wait months for treatment in Coffs did not have a deadly outcome but I wonder how many others have not been so lucky.
During the past 3 months of my ongoing treatments, I have found the staff and the doctors at the Oncology unit exceptional, worth their weight in gold. They are a very professional hard working and very compassionate team of people who deserve every accolade.
The Machine also works too hard 5/6 days a week and unfortunately also breaks down, like last week, two days running. Incidentally, the machine has a regular monthly maintenance day but from working so hard it obviously takes a break when it feels overworked. This also adds to the stress for sufferers and staff as that treatment then has to be rescheduled and as in my case it was too late to contact me and I wasted a trip from Woolgoolga which on my very limited self funded super pension just made our finances even sicker …
I beg the Government and the Minister to do something about this. I have mentioned only two cases, but I ask the Minister to look at the waiting lists. The treatment is given in other places, but surely it would be cheaper in both the short-term and the long-term to have another machine in Coffs Harbour so that the care unit can provide a treatment regime for people who should not be sent elsewhere.
INGLEBURN LIONS CLUB
Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [1.59 p.m.]: I wish to inform the House of the forty-fifth anniversary of the charter of the Ingleburn Lions Club. I attended a celebration dinner held on 5 April at Ingleburn RSL. Ingleburn Lions Club was chartered on 23 March 1963 and has served the local community for 45 years. The Lions' objective is to create and foster a spirit of understanding among the people of the world. I might add that I am a proud member of the Parliamentary Lions, as are some of my colleagues on both sides of the House—the only forum in this place where partisan politics is not permitted.
Lion Jo Villella, the District Governor, was in attendance. Aaron Rule, the Mayor of Campbelltown, who presented the club with a 45-year continuous service award, was also present. Lion Wayne Franshaw is the current president, and president-elect again next year. Ingleburn Lions is a successful club, and has recruited seven new members over the last 12 months. The list of achievements of the Ingleburn Lions over the last 45 years is extremely long. Typical of its recent achievements are the supply of Hart walkers—costing $11,000 each—to local children with cerebral palsy, manpower for the Red Shield Appeal, support for camp quality and helping the aged community by providing services such as house repairs and lawn mowing.
Lion Bob Cunningham led the sausage sizzle at the community information day at Glenfield for the South West Rail link. Lion Keith Kent, past district governor, was chairman for the recently held Youth of the Year Region Six final, ably assisted by his wife, Lions lady Muriel Kent. The Ingleburn Lions also collects unwanted and used spectacles from optometrists. The glasses are sent to centres in Queensland, organised by Lions Recycle for Sight, where they are washed, graded and packed ready for overseas shipment. The glasses are sent to countries such as The Philippines and Borneo and several provinces in Africa. Other countries where glasses have been sent include Timor, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Vanuatu, Moldova and India. Lion Keith Smith, also a past district governor and chairman of the project, and President Wayne Franshaw are looking to expand the project.
Since my election to Parliament I have spoken about the excellent information book on diabetes, written by professor Steven Lilloja. The Lions Club of the City of Liverpool, in conjunction with Steven 7812 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Lillioja, were the catalyst behind the development and printing of the diabetes book over a four-year period. The Liverpool club obtained the funds to ensure the program was a success. Ingleburn was invited to participate in the program within its own area, as were other clubs in the region. This is the best book on diabetes I have seen to date. It is in plain English, which is a rare feat for patient information books. It is colour coded on glossy paper, only 16 pages long, and easy and informative to read. The book has sensible and clear achievable messages and is widely available. I recommend the book to all members of the House. The book has been nominated by the Lions Club of Liverpool in the Lions International "Challenge for Change" competition and is one of three finalists from all Lions clubs around the world as the best community project for 2007-08. The winner will be decided at the international convention in Bangkok on the 26 June 2008. Best of luck to the Liverpool Lions!
On the evening the music was performed by the Campbelltown Camden District Stage Band, led by Director of Music Harold Pollard. The New South Wales Neonatal and Paediatric Emergency Transport Service [NETS] was given a donation of $9,400. The Lions Ladies Auxiliary, led by President Carol Franshaw, raised $3,400 of that amount. NETS transports sick babies and children from all over the State and is always only a phone call away for any hospital that has a child who requires intensive care and retrieval. NETS has revolutionised paediatric care in New South Wales. NETS supports south-west Sydney, so it was great that Ingleburn Lions were able to help. Also on the evening long service awards were given to Keith Kent, 45 years; Norm McDonald, 36 years; Andrew Leeding, 35 years; Keith Smith, 37 years; Paul Hawker, 30 years; and Dennis Baert, 25 years. Keith Kent and Keith Smith are past district governors. How much better is our community for the 208 combined years of service? I commend the Ingleburn Lions Club to the House.
CHELTENHAM GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [2.04 p.m.]: Cheltenham Girls High School is an outstanding non-selective high school and one of the most outstanding in New South Wales. In the 2006 Higher School Certificate results it was judged to be the best non-selective public school in Sydney's Hornsby region, and the sixth best performing school in the State. The school has a unique colour scheme of pink and blue. Last year I had the privilege of attending the Cheltenham Girls High School presentation day, held at the Sydney Opera House, where 1,300 girls sang Handel's Hallelujah Chorus in a magnificent and moving way.
The Cheltenham High School has an enormous number of demountable classrooms, some of which have been on the site for as long as 35 years, whereas the Department of Education and Training policy for demountables is a maximum of five years. This problem has been partly remedied by stage one of the school's reconstruction, which involves the construction of a two-storey classroom block consisting of 20 general learning classrooms, additional toilet facilities, a lift for disabled students access and refurbishment of Block E. The school oval is to be rehabilitated for student use. Currently the school oval has been taken over by many of the demountables that were located where the extensions are taking place.
It took a long time to get the Government to act upon the obvious needs of the school. In 2002 the then Minister for Education and Training, Mr John Watkins, took an interest in the school. In 2006 the Minister for Planning gave approval after the council rejected the school's development application. In 2007, 16 demountables were relocated to the school oval. stage one of the building works commenced in 2007 and is scheduled for completion in February 2009.
Approval was also given for stage two, which involves the construction of a two-storey staff block, including a print room and many other sorely needed facilities, but the school is yet to receive any news as to whether that will happen. If stage two does not proceed it will be only half a project and the oval will remain covered with demountables. As I have said, some of the demountables have been on the site for 35 years, when the department's policy is a maximum of five years. On behalf of the school I plead with the Government to enable the completion of stage two.
The Government should be proud of Cheltenham High School. I sometimes wax on in this House about discrimination against Liberal areas for school funding. Clearly this is an exception and Minister Watkins deserves commendation for his hard efforts. Minister Della Bosca has been under some personal criticism recently. I do not criticise Minister Della Bosca but I ask him to put his efforts behind Cheltenham Girls High. The Minister needs friends at the moment and I am prepared to support him if he gives this approval.
Cheltenham High has produced some wonderful women over the years that have gone on to do outstanding things in various academic and professional areas. Susan Marshall is the school principal. Principal 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7813
Marshall and Chris Westacott, President of the Parents & Citizens Association, showed me around the school and they are very supportive. I am proud to be connected with this wonderful state school that has achieved so much despite not being a selective school. Students are taken from all around the local area, including Mr Watkins and my electorate. To make the school even more outstanding, and for the girls to be proud of the school they attend, I ask the Government to give them the money for stage two.
WYONG SHIRE MOTHERS DAY CLASSIC
Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [2.09 p.m.]: Last Sunday the annual Mothers Day Classic was held nationally in capital cities and regional areas, raising much-needed funds for the National Breast Cancer Foundation. This is the biggest community fundraising event for breast cancer in Australia, involving thousands of women, men, girls and boys of all ages. In 2005 there were 4,070 new cases of breast cancer in New South Wales. All members would agree that every new case is one too many. The vast majority of people who help put together the Mothers Day Classic events all over the country are volunteers. They give their time each year as a way of actively contributing to the fight against breast cancer. Last year the Mothers Day Classic attracted more than 50,000 participants nationwide and raised more than $800,000 for its beneficiary, the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The total raised by the event for breast cancer research since 1998 is more than $3 million.
This year I was pleased to participate in the inaugural Wyong Shire Mothers Day Classic, a four-kilometre fun walk commencing at Norah Head. Some people ran, but I stuck stringently to walking. The Wyong Shire Classic was organised by a very committed woman, Sharren Ray. Sharren, a Central Coast resident who has been affected by this disease, is very passionate about helping and supporting people with breast cancer. She firmly believes that by working together and maintaining a positive outlook we can make a difference. Sharren's positive outlook is an inspiration. She acknowledges the support of her friends during her own fight, particularly that of her aunt Elaine Haylen, who is a breast cancer survivor and whom Sharren considers her mentor. Sharren's desire to raise much-needed funds for breast cancer research motivated her to register the Wyong Shire Classic. Not knowing whether she would get even 20 people to attend, she enlisted the help of local agencies, professionals, family and friends and was overwhelmed with the outstanding response on the day. Approximately 5,000 people were involved.
The walk started at the beautiful Norah Head bush reserve. People were able to walk out to the Norah Head lighthouse and around Cabbage Tree Bay along the rock platform, enjoying our pristine coastline in glorious sunshine. My wife, Sherelle, and my two girls, Rachael and Jessica, joined me. We dedicated our participation to my aunt who tragically passed away from breast cancer. My dedicated staff, Ann and Colleen, also participated. We are all passionate advocates of supporting cancer sufferers. Sharren enlisted the support of the local Kanwal tai chi community, in particular, Lisa McEvoy and Sandra Smith, who ran a tai chi warm-up workshop for participants. This was my first experience of tai chi and I quite enjoyed it. It was most relaxing. A hot pink marquee, provided by Anne Berry from the Cancer Council of New South Wales, was set up so that participants could come and talk to Sharren and other volunteers about different aspects of breast cancer, as well as to obtain relevant information and leaflets.
The number of people Sharren was able to speak to enhanced her level of enjoyment. Sharren was thrilled that so many people were willing to talk about their experiences and learn more about breast cancer. She is keen for the Mothers Day Classic to remain an annual event in the Wyong shire and will investigate other ways to raise funds to help local services and ensure that Wyong has facilities and services of the highest standard. As a staunch advocate for quality services on the Central Coast and in the Wyong shire, in particular, Sharren is to be commended. We are very lucky in Wyong shire to have highly motivated individuals who work tirelessly to raise important funds for community causes.
In making the Wyong Shire Classic a success, Sharren asked me to acknowledge the support of the Wyong Hospital's Cancer Unit; local general practitioner Sally Kennett; Gorokan Kanwal Lions Club, whose members cooked the barbecue; Wyong shire mayor, Councillor Warren Welham; and breast cancer nurses Stephanie Forster and Pip Clayton from Gosford Hospital, to name a few. The national Mothers Day Classic initiative was inspired by the knowledge that research is gradually improving the survival rate of the one in eight women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime. Improving the quality of life of those with breast cancer is a valuable and rewarding investment in our community. I congratulate all the people involved in the Wyong Shire Classic and wish them well in their admirable campaign. I hope it goes from strength to strength and continues into the future. 7814 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
MANLY COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING DINNER
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [2.13 p.m.]: Tonight the community of Manly will come together to support the inaugural Community Fundraising Dinner. This event has been organised to support local causes, both community and sporting groups. The funds raised will go to the Many Community Centre's domestic violence program and to our surf clubs in the electorate, which provide an outstanding service to our community and those who visit our beaches. When I became a member of Parliament I had a broad vision, that is, to help the community come together and focus on the issues that unite rather than those that divide us. I am delighted to say that the Manly community has embraced this event, which has sold out—more than 220 people will attend. That shows the spirit of the local community. A number of volunteers have given their time and expertise. There will be items to auction, dancing and singers. All these people will come together to show their support for their community and the good work of the causes.
In particular, I to refer to some of the volunteers: Kristie Morgan from my office, or Morgs as she has become affectionately known; Una Hanlong-Schafer from the Manly Community Centre; Grace Harris; Rowen Web; Kate Allen, Mary Finkelsen, Lucinda Millsom and Shelley Oates-Wilding who will be the master of ceremonies. An incredible woman, Jacqui Smith, leads the Manly Community Centre. She and a small team of welfare workers and trained volunteers, about 60 or 70 people, have served the community since 1975. Jackie is an icon in the community, having served for about 22 years. The centre has a small budget of only $72,000 a year, yet it provides welfare support for the homeless and mentally ill, and counselling for drug and alcohol dependence, relationship problems and bereavement. It provides support services for seniors, adult literacy education, taxation advice and housing assistance. Most importantly, the centre runs a domestic violence program.
Since last year the community centre has offered a free and confidential domestic violence service. The program, which is being run as a trial by Una Hanlong-Schafer, provides information, support and referrals to affected families. There may be a glib response from the broader community that these sorts of problems do not exist in Manly, but I can tell them that they do. Hundreds of people are impacted by domestic violence. This program is undoubtedly helping them to deal with tough situations. The statistics show that domestic violence on the peninsula is getting worse. In the past 18 months the Manly Community Centre has seen a steady increase in women seeking help for domestic violence. Jacqui Smith believes one of the main causes is the rising cost of living. The impact of the rising cost of living on domestic relationships is one of the untold stories in our State and country today.
One morning before Christmas Una received five calls for help in one hour. If the Manly Community Centre does not receive more funds this service cannot continue. We very much look forward to raising funds tonight to provide this essential service to our community. The dinner will also raise funds to support the six surf clubs in the Manly electorate—Manly, North Steyne, Queenscliff, Freshwater, North Curl Curl and South Curl Curl. They are icons in the Manly community. Manly and Freshwater surf life saving clubs will celebrate their one hundredth anniversary this year. Across the six clubs, thousands of members perform thousands of rescues every year. Last year members of Manly surf club alone performed more than 2,000 rescues, provided first aid and prevented deaths. Many members and people from their electorates would have visited Manly Beach.
Our surf clubs need support not only from the local community but also from the State Government. I will talk to the Minister for Sport and Recreation about assistance for these clubs in the years to come. As the shadow Minister for Youth Affairs, I am pleased that these clubs play a significant role in our community by providing an avenue for our youth to participate in lifesaving competitions and training. The club members act as mentors to young people, providing advice about alcohol use and peer group pressure in an informal way and as part of the club spirit. They play an essential role in our community. I thank the Manly community for supporting this inaugural event, which will become an annual event. I thank all the sponsors and donors who have supported this cause. Without them, it would not have been possible. I am proud to serve them as their local member. They are helping to make a difference by supporting the Manly Community Centre and our surf clubs.
QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly) [2.18 p.m.]: I wish the fundraising event, about which the member for Manly has just spoken, much success. The Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital in my electorate is a great facility. The QV, as we know it, is an aged-care facility located near Picton and is part of the Macarthur 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7815
Health Service. It caters for the acute aged-care accommodation needs for members in my electorate. QV includes a nursing home and hostel for long-term care and respite care. The Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital tries to achieve each resident maintaining a quality of life and enjoyment of an optimum level of function, according to individual needs, while the hospital simultaneously maintains a high level of cooperation, interaction and goodwill between all health service providers to deliver quality service.
The Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital is an important part of Australia's history and heritage. It was established by Colonel J. Goodlet and was one of the first homes in Australia to be established for the treatment of tuberculosis. After World War II returned service women used it for that purpose. The hospital is an example of late nineteenth century architecture for private hospital services. One part of the site is Goodlet House, which was established in 1886. Some of the buildings are not in use today but still retain most of their original fabric and detailing, although the overall character has been changed, due to additions and alterations to the original building over time.
There has been a degree of uncertainty about the future of the hospital. However, I have been assured that Queen Victoria hospital will continue to service the Wollondilly area well into the future. The community's aspiration for the site is to develop three levels of care at the location. They include independent accommodation, hostel accommodation and acute care, which is already on site. Research has shown that offering these three levels of care in close proximity to each other not only benefits patients but also their close family members. An excellent example of this is Carrington Centennial Hospital in the nearby electorate of Camden. Carrington is an excellent facility managed and operated by committed and highly skilled board members and staff. Our aim is to get such a facility in Wollondilly, and the foundations at Queen Victoria appear to me to be an ideal starting point. Resolving the heritage and infrastructure of the site, along with supporting the services at the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital, have been key priorities for many in the community and me.
A Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital advisory committee was formed many years ago to drive the expectations of the community in support of existing and future patients. This committee has been a strong advocate for an extension of services at Queen Victoria. I commend the members for their hard work and long-term commitment. At this stage, to realise the community's vision, the site requires rezoning, which is being looked at by council as part of the local environment plan review. We all look forward to the progress of that. Once this is complete I will be pressing Government to return to investigating the best use of this site and to deliver a much-needed service to the people of rural Wollondilly. I thank the staff at Queen Victoria hospital for their care for our elderly. They are a hardworking and compassionate nursing staff and they do many wonderful things for our long-term locals. I look forward to working with the community and the Government to deliver a quality service to the good people of Wollondilly. I commend Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital to the House.
DISABILITY SERVICES
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [2.22 p.m.]: Recently we have heard in this place about ongoing problems with a shortage of respite care and supported accommodation. However, these are not the only problems facing families with disabled children. A well-known disability advocate, Katrina Clarke, who lives in my electorate, forwarded me an appeal from a family wanting help to purchase and modify a vehicle for wheelchair carrying. Virginia Cooper wrote a very real and sad story as follows:
I have four children. My youngest child has a profound physical disability and is reliant on a wheelchair. Michael also has vision impairment, hearing impairment and is developmentally delayed. Due to the level of care that my youngest child requires I am unable to work. Our family now relies on my husband's income alone which is around $37,000. Financially we really struggle.
Our youngest child has a lot of very expensive equipment needs and out of the 20 or so pieces of equipment that he has needed in the past 5 years only 3 of those have been supplied by the Program of Appliances for Disabled People. I spend most of my days writing letters to various organisations appealing for funds for the latest piece of essential equipment that Michael requires. I have just finished fundraising over $15,000 for a ceiling hoisting system to lift our son as he suffers from hip dislocation and repetitive strain in his shoulders from us carrying him. The joints in his shoulders are actually separating.
I am currently trying to fundraise for a wheelchair accessible vehicle without much success. I need to raise $39,000 for the vehicle and a further $28,000 for the conversion. This is an area that needs to be looked at, as in Western Australia families can apply to the independent living centre for assistance with hoisting systems and wheelchair conversions for a vehicle as part of the West's lotteries charities scheme.
In our house the carers bonus is used for many things that we could not otherwise afford. Our son has not had access to therapy services since he was 3 years old. DADHC in the Macarthur area do not provide therapy services at all (I have this in writing 7816 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
from them on a letterhead). Our son now attends a private school over 52 km from home for the sole purpose of access to ongoing therapy services. The cost of the school fees is more than what the bonus pays.
Our third child also has some delays. We are unable to access ongoing speech, physio or occupational therapy for her. Alex is now struggling with her schoolwork as her speech problems are impacting her reading and learning.
We are unable to afford to fund her therapies privately and the bonus does not stretch far enough to cover this either. Previously we have purchased things such as a trampoline to assist Alex with her balance and gross motor skills with the bonus. One year we bought the children's beds. This year we have already spent the bonus in advance getting the kids back to school end enrolling them into a sport each. Our credit cards are currently maxed out.
It is painfully obvious that this Government, unfortunately, has failed the disabled in this State and in my electorate, despite the Stronger Together package. As the shadow minister and member for Bega has previously stated:
The NSW Minister Kristina Keneally demanded $1.3 billion be matched by the Federal Government when the Coalition was in power but has been mysteriously silent since the election of the Rudd Government.
Mrs Cooper, the author of the letter I just read to the House, also speaks comparatively of help available in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, people who receive a disability pension, a disability living allowance or a war pension mobility supplement can receive government assistance to lease a new car every three years. The United Kingdom also uses lotteries to raise funds for the disabled. Western Australia has similar schemes that utilise lotteries to provide vehicle hoists and modifications, assistive technology for people with vision impairment, assistive technology for people with communication impairment and air conditioners for eligible people. Until 30 April there was no substantial and comprehensive guide to assist parents with disabled children in my electorate or elsewhere to find their way through the maze of services. Parents of disabled children who formed the Association for Children with a Disability [ACD], chaired by Katrina Clarke, wrote a short introductory booklet Helping You and Your Family and the book Through the Maze.
To the Government's credit, it funded the printing of those two documents. Now families with disabled children have a tangible road map to the services that are offered in New South Wales. The story told at the launch by the book's main author, Sue Griffin, was powerful and compelling and provided insights to the needs of families who have a disabled child. Recently I attended a function at the St Ives Shopping Centre that raised funds to support people with disabilities at the St Ives Spastic Centre. Former Miss World Australia Caroline Pemberton also supported the fundraiser. It was a pleasure to assist the exceptional work of the Spastic Centre and to see the local community's support for such a worthy cause.
TAMWORTH VOLUNTEERS
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [2.27 p.m.]: I recently had the honour of presenting certificates to local seniors volunteers who had been recognised by the New South Wales Government for their efforts. I was delighted to present Manilla's Josephine Cruickshank and Tamworth's John Lysaght with certificates recognising their nomination for Seniors Awards in Community Service/Volunteering. For many years Josephine has been a volunteer at Manilla hospital, including helping feed the elderly in the Acacia ward. She has been involved also with the Red Cross, View Club and the Anglican Ladies Guild, and every day she walks about five kilometres clearing litter from the local Manilla roads.
John Lysaght is currently President and Treasurer of the Tamworth Senior Citizens Committee, and this year marks his fiftieth anniversary as a volunteer. At the same time I congratulated Brian Sykes for winning a State award for community service and volunteering. The Northern District Bowling Association nominated Brian, who had already been presented with his award by the Minister for Ageing. Brian has for many years been a local and regional administrator, a coach and examiner. He has held many roles over 30 years with Peel Valley Lions Club, and has provided transport for the frail elderly with Co-Care.
This being National Volunteer Week, it is a wonderful opportunity to say thank you to all our volunteers and to recognise the significant role they play in our communities. I inform the House about some of the volunteer organisations I have met with in recent weeks, and detail the invaluable role that volunteers play in the electorate of Tamworth. In February I attended the tenth anniversary celebrations of the Kootingal Branch of the Country Women's Association. The Kootingal Country Women's Association is involved in many local community events including Anzac Day, Kootingal Markets, Carols in the Park, Australia Day concerts and the Kootingal Pumpkin festivals.
The association's members donate time, food and money across the local area and they assist organisations, including the preschool, the four local schools—Kootingal, Limbri, Moonbi and Tintinhull—the 16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7817
Anna Disher Memorial Scholarship Fund, the local rural fire brigade, Meals on Wheels, Moonby House and local families who are experiencing tough times. They have donated to the broader community hospital care packs, premi-baby sets, trauma teddies, knee rugs, overseas dress materials and school crafts, all of which is financed through catering, raffles, market stalls and cake stalls. Like all Country Women's Association branches, they play a vital role in their local community.
The Tamworth and District War Widows' Guild Club celebrated its fifteenth anniversary recently. Originally formed to allow war widows from around the region to meet and share friendships, the group today boasts more than 100 members whose average age is 82. The club organises the annual Field of Remembrance celebrations in Tamworth. This year the club celebrated the tenth anniversary of the local Field of Remembrance, and that is a tribute to this wonderful organisation. President Joan Rankine and her team have developed the memorial service to the point at which many locals are extremely grateful for the opportunity to pay their respects to people who gave their life for our country.
In March, delegates from the United Hospital Auxiliaries New England North-West held their regional conference in Tamworth, with delegates from Gunnedah, Manilla and Barraba joining the local Tamworth and Duri branches and branches from the Northern Tablelands. This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Hospital Auxiliaries and, although their roles have changed over the years, they still play a vital part in providing hospital support. The background to the auxiliary is that in 1930, 38 local women formed a local auxiliary in Tamworth for the purpose of organising fundraising activities, including hospital balls, street stalls, card evenings and regular tennis parties. The auxiliary has provided air-conditioning, humidicribs, a cardiac monitor, respirator, humidifier and anaesthetic machines. They furnished the nurses quarters and bought an ice machine as well as many other essentials.
Duri formed a hospital auxiliary in 1945 and it has supported Tamworth Hospital ever since. Over 14 years it has provided more than 9,000 sown articles, including quilts, theatre gowns, bassinet nets, baby nightgowns, masks, jug covers, aprons, drapes, sheets—the list goes on. The auxiliary raises several thousand dollars a year to continue its good work. I encourage young people to consider joining the hospital auxiliaries: new membership will ensure that their vital work continues into the future. Recently I visited Curlewis Branch of the Country Women's Association and presented branch secretary, Rebecca Beasley, with a cheque from the State Government to help to connect the branch's hall to the town sewerage system. I thank the Premier for providing the funds.
Voluntary organisations such as our local Country Women's Association branches are very important, and over time can save the Government many thousands of dollars through the services they supply, not to mention how they actively work to improve country amenities. The Country Women's Association's role in providing and coordinating drought assistance over recent years is an indicator of its vital place in the community. I have provided the House with but a small snapshot of local volunteer organisations. Those organisations are complemented by volunteer rescue and fire officers, Meals On Wheels, volunteer transport and sporting officials—in fact, the list goes on and on, across all facets of our community. All volunteers deserve our support and heartfelt thanks.
CRONULLA RAIL COMMUTER SERVICES
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [2.32 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the problems faced by commuters in my electorate. Recently I received an email from two residents. It states:
As long time Cronulla residents we have watched with horror the establishment of the parking facility-Stalag Cronulla, by the State Rail Authority at Cronulla Railway Station. We note now with the high fence, bright lighting and CCTV it seems now necessary to employ a full time security guard just in case in intruder should get past all the above. The facility has yet to be occupied as to 25 percent of it's capacity, surely considering the area, cost of construction these limited usage car spots rate as some of the most expensive in the state on a per spot basis. Enough of the negativity surely it would be in everyones best interest and certainly a PR coup for State Rail, who have no friends re their Gannons Road bridge non expansion decision, to open up Stalag Cronulla to public usage even if limited to say State Rail Cronulla customers by a sticker system. Note SRA employees could have designated parking spots also controlled by stickers, the number of which could be controlled by State Rail as to their requirements. Surely the above would be of assistance in making Cronulla more user friendly in regards to parking and thus the attraction of visitors to the area by the removal of more local cars off the public roads for car parking.
Car parking problems are closely associated with train services. I asked the Minister for Transport whether Millennium trains would service the Cronulla line after duplication of the line is completed. His reply referred to sector 2, which does not include the Illawarra line. The best he could do was to state:
RailCorp is also purchasing 122 Outer Suburban Carriages (OSCARS) to provide additional trains for growth. The new OSCARS will make available outer suburban Tangaras to increase capacity on suburban lines.
7818 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Winning an OSCar is no substitute for having regular Millennium train services! Delays on the Illawarra line are a problem that is exacerbated by the fact that no reason is given for the delays. I recently asked the Minister how many delays occurred on the Illawarra line between 1 March and 30 March 2008 and the reasons were for those delays. The best answer the Minister could provide stated:
These delays were attributed to a variety are reasons including issues with trains and vandalism, bad weather, security and passenger illness.
It is extraordinary that the Minister seems to have information that escaped all commuters, including me. He told the House in answer to a question on notice:
Express services between Cronulla and Kirrawee currently run approximately every 15 minutes during morning and evening peak periods, and every 30 minutes at other times.
I have never heard of an express train between Cronulla and Kirrawee. That is extraordinary information. I certainly would not want to accuse the Minister of misleading the House, but I can only sympathetically visualise the forlorn figure of the member for Miranda on Miranda railway station platform while the Kirrawee express rattles by—apparently every 15 minutes during morning and evening peak periods and every 30 minutes at other times. The Minister for Transport seems to have reached rock bottom when it comes services and communication for commuters. Unfortunately he just keeps on drilling.
CHINA EARTHQUAKE
MS MELISSA SMITH IN CHINA
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [2.37 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a wonderful young Forbes resident who was captain of Forbes High School last year and a member of the New South Wales Youth Council, Melissa Smith. Melissa was caught up in the 7.9 magnitude earthquake that devastated south-western China on Monday night. Fortunately she has been confirmed safe. Melissa has been teaching English in the town of Xindu in south-western China, about 50 kilometres from the quake's epicentre. An article in the Forbes Advocate relates her story:
Ms Smith was in her apartment sitting at her computer when the quake struck...
"There was no warning, no subtle shaking, my desk just started to move, glasses started to fall off the cupboard.
"You don't expect it...it was unbelievable.
Ms Smith had been living with two other teachers in the city and fled to the streets.
She spoke of shouting children fleeing classrooms and people jumping from the third storey of buildings.
"Myself and two other foreign teachers stood between buildings unwilling to walk between them as they shook violently, with windows smashing and students running and screaming panicked...
She said the buildings in Xindu are relatively new which helped to minimise damage...
"Only around four people died here and we were pretty lucky when you look at the devastation in other places."
Ms Smith said the area is still experiencing after shocks, including one 6.1 magnitude shock which cut short an Advocate interview on Tuesday.
Ms Smith and her colleagues are still sleeping in a car.
"At the moment, the situation is still pretty confused.
"Everyone is still their cars and in parks. There's hundreds sleeping out and it's raining over here now so it's getting pretty messy...
Schools have been particularly badly affected, with at least eight in the region having been flattened and many of the dead children trapped in the rubble of their classrooms...
Ms Smith had been in China on a gap program, teaching English at the Xindu No. 1 Middle School.
She had been in the area for three months before the quake struck.
Before leaving for China, Ms Smith had chalked up numerous awards for leadership in the local community and was Dux of Forbes High School in 2007.
Smith and her colleagues were on their way to donate blood yesterday morning.
16 May 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7819
Yesterday afternoon I received an email from Melissa telling me that she gathered together a group of students and they walked through the parks and streets collecting money. The email states:
In less than an hour we fundraised almost 4500RMB. The people we being so, so generous and it is just amazing to see how people are sticking together to work through this. I was in line to give blood at 7.30 for 9 and there was already about 200 people there. They are knocking most people back though as they already have so many donations but are desperate for AB type.
It is so frustrating being here and not being able to do anything as my chinese is limited, and most of the time would be more than a hindrance than a help. This morning however we were able to help out down at the volunteers centre for a few hours handing out flyers and help packing supplies. In Xindu alone there has been literally tonnes and tonnes of clothing, bedding, food and general sundries brought by the people. It is absolutely amazing how people are banding together and what I am gather from the news is that the Red Cross and Army are also doing an excellent job.
Firstly thankyou for all your emails, messages, wall posts and phonecalls. I think it only began to become a reality yesterday and all of us who are here just cannot believe how lucky we have been. There are places that are less than an hours drive that are completely destroyed. Yesterday we got a group of students together and walked through the parks and streets collecting money. In less than an hour we fundraised almost 4500RMB. The people were being so, so generous and it is just amazing to see how people are sticking together to work through this. I was in line to give blood at 7.30 for 9 and there was already about 200 people there. They are knocking most people back though as they already have so many donations but are desperate for AB type.
It is so frustrating being here and not being able to do anything as my chinese is limited, and most of the time would be more than a hindrance than a help. This morning however we were able to help out down at the volunteers centre for a few hours handing out flyers and help packing supplies. In Xindu alone there has been literally tonnes and tonnes of clothing, bedding, food and general sundries brought by the people. It is absolutely amazing how people are banding together and what I can gather from the news is that the Red Cross and Army are also doing an excellent job. A chinese friend of ours is taking care of two 14 year old boys whose school collapsed in WenChuan, the epicentre. One of them was outside with a teacher when the earthquake hit, their building collapsed straight away. I am not going to write in this email some of the things they have seen but it is absolutely shocking. There are 400 students at their school and around 40 have survived. They had been at the school until Tuesday afternoon when their teachers basically told them to leave and try to find help themselves as they didn't think it was coming. They walked 15km towards Xindu with their female cousin who has a broken leg before they were picked up by the army and brought to a hospital here. They took them back last night to see if they could find any family, they did, an aunt who told them that their parents are alive but are unable to get back to WenChuan. They are being so so brave. One is full of life, trying to practice his english and seems fine, the other however extremely quiet and probably in a massive state of shock. These kids are amazing.
It is still unbelievable what is happening, what we are seeing on TV here is frightening. On our holiday 2 weeks ago, Katie and I drove through all these badly hit places and they are absolutely beautiful.
The only aftershock I have felt today was a short time ago while I was writing this email but that has been all and hopefully we might be able to sleep inside tonight. We are all so glad the rain has stopped. Please keep all these people in your thoughts and if you pray, pray.
Melissa Smith is a remarkable young lady whom I have known for about two years, particularly in the past 12 months since the borders of my electorate were redrawn to take in Forbes. Forbes is indeed lucky to have this wonderful young woman in its community. She is a leader of the future. I feel she has been specially chosen to go to China. Melissa will make a much bigger contribution to that country than merely as an English teacher.
PENRITH SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY
PENRITH COUNTRY WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION EIGHTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [2.41 p.m.]: Today I pass on my birthday wishes to two major organisations within the electorate of Penrith. These two organisations recently celebrated birthdays. While I am unable to bring birthday cake to the Chamber today, I assure members that both cakes that I tried were exceedingly delicious. The Penrith Symphony Orchestra held its twentieth birthday celebrations at the magnificent Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, and the Penrith branch of the Country Women's Association celebrated its eightieth anniversary. They are quite different organisations, but they both add value to the community of Penrith and the lower Blue Mountains.
The Penrith Symphony Orchestra has almost the same evolution as the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre—the only performing arts centre named after Dame Joan. The orchestra was formed just a few months before the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre opened. It first practised at my old high school, Nepean High School, but it now practises at the Richard Bonnynge Theatre. The theatre holds up to 600 people and is excellent acoustically—indeed, the ABC often makes recordings there. The President of the Penrith Symphony Orchestra is Mrs Jenny Bounds, OAM, and she is ably assisted by a committee that includes her husband, Mr John Bounds.
For 20 years the Penrith Symphony Orchestra has been entertaining local families and offering opportunities to talented local musicians. Today I will speak briefly about one of those people: Sarah-Grace 7820 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 May 2008
Williams. Jenny Bounds was a teacher in our local area. While working at York Public School in South Penrith, she came across a young child in about year 3 or 4 who had a gift for music. That child was Sarah-Grace Williams. Jenny gave Sarah-Grace her first musical instrument. Throughout her schooling she continued performing, and eventually gained first-class honours from the University of Western Sydney in Performance, Composition and Conducting. Sarah-Grace then went abroad to study conducting at St Petersburg and Amsterdam. She is now back in Penrith, less than two kilometres from her old primary school, and is one of the lead conductors of the Penrith Symphony Orchestra.
The twentieth birthday celebrations featured Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Stanhope's Helter Skelter and Mozart's Clarinet Concerto. Sarah-Grace was the conductor. It is worth noting that the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre is proof of the Iemma Government's commitment to the arts in Western Sydney. It is the largest arts project outside the Sydney central business district and receives significant government funding. It is important to note that that funding has provided extended performance space for the Q Theatre as well as educational space. The theatre now has orchestral rooms, performance rooms, rooms for singing and rooms from which the Penrith Conservatorium of Music operates. I know I join all members in wishing the Penrith Symphony Orchestra a very happy twentieth birthday.
The other birthday celebration I attended was the eightieth anniversary of the Penrith branch of the Country Women's Association [CWA]. Firstly, I pass my thanks to the committee of the Penrith branch of the CWA—in particular, President Mrs Bev Byrnes, Secretary Mrs Margaret Pope and Treasurer Mrs Joyce Gardner. The first meeting of the Penrith branch of the CWA was held at Penrith City Council, with 28 women attending. It moved to a location on High Street in June of the same year. The women met regularly and assisted their local community wherever possible by donating clothes for children, making donations to the local ambulance service and hospital, and even providing milk to Penrith Primary School from 1931 to 1942 when the Government scheme began.
I note that this occurred under a Labor Government; we know the New South Wales Liberal Party has never done anything for our local schools! But I digress. During the war years the Penrith branch of the CWA sent parcels to, and knitted for, the armed forces. In 1967 the branch became a member of the Associated Country Women of the World organisation, and remains a member to this day. I acknowledge the branch's contribution to the community and its services to medical research and to Nepean Hospital. I commend these two organisations to the House.
Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Private members' statements noted.
The House adjourned at 2.46 p.m. until Tuesday 3 June 2008 at 12.00 noon.
______