BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING ...... 24297, 24308, 24310 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 24264, 24298, 24315, 24322 CARBON TAX REPEAL ...... 24305 COAL SEAM GAS PROHIBITION (SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT SPECIAL AREAS) BILL 201324264 COMMITTEE ON LAW AND SAFETY ...... 24307 COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION ...... 24307 COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN, THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND THE CRIME COMMISSION ...... 24307 CRIMES AMENDMENT (ZOE'S LAW) BILL 2013 (NO 2) ...... 24267 CROWN LANDS TENURE ...... 24299 ILLAWARRA PUBLIC TRANSPORT ...... 24288 ILLAWARRA RESOURCES FOR REGIONS ...... 24283 JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ...... 24277 KIAMA JUNIOR RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB ...... 24293 LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE ...... 24295 LIQUOR AMENDMENT (KINGS CROSS PLAN OF MANAGEMENT) BILL 2013 ...... 24264 LOUD SHIRT DAY ...... 24297 MEMBER FOR BLACKTOWN ...... 24308, 24310, 24316 MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMENTS...... 24322 OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS ...... 24298, 24299, 24301 PARTIAL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION ...... 24298 PETITIONS ...... 24307 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ...... 24294 QUESTION TIME ...... 24298 REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS ...... 24297 RETIREMENT OF KEITH FERGUSON ...... 24297 SIBLING SCHOOL ENROLMENT ...... 24304 SOUTH WEST RAIL LINK ...... 24301 TAFE FEES ...... 24302 TOURISM AND MAJOR EVENTS ...... 24303
24264
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday 17 October 2013
______
The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT (KINGS CROSS PLAN OF MANAGEMENT) BILL 2013
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
COAL SEAM GAS PROHIBITION (SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT SPECIAL AREAS) BILL 2013
Bill introduced on motion by Mr John Robertson, read a first time and printed.
Second Reading
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [10.05 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Coal Seam Gas Prohibition (Sydney Water Catchment Special Areas) Bill 2013. This is a bill that every member of this House should support because its purpose is very simple: to permanently ban coal seam gas activity from the precious water catchment areas of Sydney and the Illawarra. It is an honour and a privilege to serve as a New South Wales parliamentarian. We have many responsibilities, but none can be greater than providing people across Sydney and the Illawarra with access to clean, fresh drinking water. Without safe drinking water, human health is put at risk. Without safe drinking water, the very future of a region is compromised. Australia is one of the driest continents on Earth. Our water is our most precious asset.
So today—at a time when we have wall to wall Coalition governments in Sydney and Canberra; at a time when the Prime Minister and his Minister for Industry are ready, like bulls at a gate, to allow coal seam gas companies open slather—the Parliament of New South Wales must be a cautious voice for restraint. Together, we must take a stand and protect the integrity of our water supply both now and into the future, for our children and our grandchildren. I say to the people of New South Wales who may be disillusioned with State politics, who look at this place and think that politicians are all the same, that on this issue we are not all the same. Labor has made its choice and there is no going back. Labor will put water first, and coal seam gas second. Labor will put rural and regional communities first, and coal seam gas second. Labor will put people first, and coal seam gas second.
Ours is a party that historically has enjoyed proud links with mining. And we are talking today about a sector that is not without potential to support jobs and economic growth in New South Wales. The sector has a role to play in the twenty-first century energy mix. Mining and farming interests can and must find a way to coexist because both underpin the livelihoods of thousands of people across our State. Nonetheless, today we need to face a brutal fact. There are scores of coal seam gas licences in operation across New South Wales. However, the industry does not enjoy the most crucial licence of all—that is, the licence from the community to proceed.
As Leader of the Labor Party in New South Wales, I make no bones about the fact that politicians of all sides rushed too quickly ahead of the people on coal seam gas. In saying that I include the previous Labor Government. Contrary to the claims made by the Coalition, I have never issued a coal seam gas licence.
17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24265
However, I will say that this is an area where the previous Labor Government should have done much better. When I became the Leader of the Opposition, I travelled across regional New South Wales. I listened to the experts. I read the scientific research. I am proud that I stood up and said enough is enough. Labor is going to stand with the community on this issue. We will support an immediate moratorium on coal seam gas. We want to see the pause button hit in New South Wales. We will apply the precautionary principle until the scientific community can demonstrate this industry is safe.
I recognise that it is not enough for Labor simply to say that we will suspend coal seam gas until the science is in. The people of this State also deserve certainty, and that means having no-go zones. Some parts of our State are so precious and so important that they must be permanently ring fenced without delay. The core Sydney and Illawarra catchment areas are two such places. Coal seam gas activity in those areas must be ruled out—ruled out today and ruled out forever. The bill that I have introduced seeks to achieve two main goals. First, it cancels any exploration licence, assessment lease, production lease or special prospecting authority relating to coal seam gas in any Sydney water catchment special area. Secondly, it prevents the granting or renewal of any coal seam gas licence or leases in these areas. Importantly, the bill also provides that the State is not liable for any compensation as a result of the proposed Act.
Today five drinking water catchments are managed and protected by the Sydney Catchment Authority. They are Warragamba, Woronora, Upper Nepean, Blue Mountains and Shoalhaven. Together they cover less than 2 per cent of the land in New South Wales, yet they supply drinking water to 60 per cent of the State's population. The Parliament has further defined and declared special areas in each of these catchments in order to exclude industrial development that could contaminate the water supply, particularly by microorganisms. I refer members to section 22 of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Regulation 2013. That section makes it illegal to enter, fish, swim, camp or light a fire in any special area listed in schedule 1. A $22,000 maximum fine exists for even walking in these areas. Yet these water catchment special areas are covered by coal seam gas licences—licences renewed by the O'Farrell Government as recently as March 2013.
[Interruption]
As the interjections keep coming I make the point that the licences were issued by the former Government and renewed by this Government. As the people of the Illawarra know, Apex Energy has been seeking to drill 16 coal seam gas exploration wells within its local catchment areas. In July this year permission was rejected by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission. My view is that if we are serious about protecting the integrity of our drinking water supply it should never have got to that point. It makes no sense that in 2013 people cannot swim in special areas of the Sydney drinking water catchment or fish there and yet there is no legislative protection to stop people drilling for coal seam gas. This is not just an anachronism and an absurdity; it is also a risk to the quality and security of Sydney's drinking water.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Oatley will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence. The member for Shellharbour will cease interjecting.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: There is much that we strongly suspect about the impact of coal seam gas activity on our water supply. We suspect that it has the potential to produce contaminated water that is high in salt, methane and toxic compounds and that it has the potential to deplete our aquifers and our groundwater— sources of water that are vital to our overall health. We also know that coal seam gas wells have the potential to degrade over time and that this sort of development cannot occur without land clearing and all the implications that contains for our plants, native vegetation and wetlands. Yes, there is much that we suspect about the impact of coal seam gas activity but there is also too much that we do not know. In July this year in her initial report on the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in New South Wales, Chief Scientist and Engineer Mary O'Kane wrote:
For a dry continent such as Australia more knowledge will be necessary. Further research is required to build our understanding of hydraulic connectivity between groundwater bodies—and also between shallow aquifers and connected surface water bodies.
Further research is also required on cumulative impacts on groundwater and connected surface water ... where there are numerous wells and plays ...
... and where there are other industries also drawing on the water such as agriculture, or changing the geological structures such as long-wall mining.
24266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
The Sydney Catchment Authority has raised concerns about the cumulative consequences for Sydney's drinking water. The chairman of its board, Mark Bethwaite, recently stated:
Given the real and potential risks to Special Areas and Sydney's water supply, SCA's strong position is that coal seam gas activities should be excluded from the Special Areas.
For its part, the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission has also stated that more conclusive studies on the impact of coal seam gas on drinking water are needed and that these studies are currently being pursued in New South Wales, Australia and internationally. With our agricultural needs, our dry climate and propensity for drought there is no country on Earth more reliant on the integrity of its water supply than Australia. Once an aquifer is damaged, it is destroyed forever. Once groundwater is contaminated, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
Labor believes in free enterprise and free markets, but environmental degradation is the ultimate case of market failure. In such a case it is the government that must step up and regulate. Of course, there was a time when we might have expected legislation to ban coal seam gas activity in drinking water catchments to sail through this Parliament unopposed, because prior to the last election that was the Premier's position. The Premier is the man who famously went up to the Central Coast and wore a shirt bearing the slogan, "Water, Not Coal."
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I see the member for The Entrance in the Chamber. He was photographed wearing a similar shirt.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting and arguing.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The Premier is the man who addressed a rally in Woodbury Park, Wyong, in March 2011 and said the immortal words:
The next Liberal/National government will ensure that mining cannot occur in any water catchment area ... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee.
Nearly three years on that solemn promise to the people of New South Wales seems to have disappeared down the murky depths of a coal seam gas well.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The member for Keira will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition does not require his assistance.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I enjoy his support nonetheless. Before the 2011 election the Coalition spoke of no-go zones, yet over the past three years it has systematically laughed in the face of every sector in the community that is desperately dependent on that commitment being fulfilled. Incredibly, the Government's Strategic Regional Land Use Policy that was released last year contained not a single no-go zone. It failed to declare a single hectare of prime agricultural land that would be ring fenced to the exclusion of mining. It failed to ring fence vital industries such as equine and viticulture and it failed to ring fence our precious drinking water catchments. Instead, it relegated them as interests to be merely considered during any development process.
The facts are indisputable. Before the election the Premier promised to protect water catchments; since the election, he has not lifted a finger. That is why this bill is so important and why he should support it. A Premier who is prepared to wear a "Water, Not Coal" T-shirt to drum up votes cannot now be allowed to wriggle out of the accountability that goes with that promise. Today I issue a challenge not just to the Premier but also to every other Liberal and Nationals member. In February this year the Deputy Premier said:
I wouldn't want coal seam gas 5 metres from my property ... there is always the potential for something to go wrong.
If the Deputy Premier is so eager to ring fence his country estate from coal seam gas why will he not extend the same protections to the drinking water of every person in the Sydney Basin? Where is the member for Kiama, who said, "I believe CSG extraction in water catchments should be banned"? Where is the member for Heathcote?
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. I call the member for Oatley to order for the first time. Opposition members who continue to argue and interject will be placed on calls to order. This is an important bill. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24267
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The member for Heathcote stated on the record:
I have always opposed CSG mining in and around our water catchment and special environment areas …
He should stand up for the Illawarra and back this bill. If the member for Wollondilly and the member for Blue Mountains were genuinely concerned about coal seam gas we would expect to see them supporting this legislation. Everyone should be supporting this legislation. We should all be enthusiastically clapping and cheering as this bill passes through. Those opposite should back this bill and show the courage of their so-called convictions. Otherwise, we and the people of New South Wales can only conclude that their support for the protection of water catchments was the ultimate in posturing prior to the last election.
The dividing line of politics in Australia in 2013 is clear. Labor stands with the people of Sydney and the Illawarra, who are rightly concerned about the future of their drinking-water supply. Tony Abbott and Barry O'Farrell are quickly becoming the stooges of the big coal seam gas companies at the expense of the community. Today, Labor is all that remains to stop Coalition governments in Sydney and Canberra from signing a blank cheque to companies like Apex and AGL and declaring vast swathes of New South Wales ripe for plunder.
While the legislation I have introduced today applies to the Sydney and Illawarra water catchments, Labor is also looking into similar protections in catchments across the Hunter, the Central Coast and far-northern New South Wales. To people in those regions I say, "Labor is the only party that is listening to you." We are the only major party in New South Wales prepared to tell the coal seam gas companies to stop. Getting tough on coal seam gas is core business for me and it is core business for Labor. And I am quite prepared to fight the next election on the issue of which party is more committed to stopping dead in its tracks coal seam gas activity in our water catchment areas.
On this crucial issue, every member of Parliament must demonstrate how committed they are to protecting our drinking water. I ask everyone in this Chamber whether they will protect Sydney's drinking water or whether they are prepared to increase the risk of contaminating it. Will they stand up for future generations or will they sell them out? I call on the House to take this opportunity to protect the Sydney water catchment and to support this bill. 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.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being before 10.30 a.m., the House will now consider General Business Orders of the Day (for Bills).
CRIMES AMENDMENT (ZOE'S LAW) BILL 2013 (NO 2)
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 August 2013.
Mr JOHN BARILARO (Monaro) [10.23 a.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) and acknowledge that voting by way of a conscience vote brings with it added gravity and responsibility. It reveals one's weakness and vulnerability. I will try, as will many speakers, to articulate my reasoning and my journey to reach my decision. It has been a journey that has stretched and broadened me, but I understand that it was a journey I had to take so that I could come here today, peaceful in both head and heart.
First, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the courage of Brodie and Nick. This bill has brought about much media interest and scrutiny, shining the spotlight on what many would believe is a private and personal story. It has opened up wounds and it takes that couple on a journey that I am sure they would like to have closure on. But it takes courage for us, as simple individuals, to learn from past events and to make sure wrongs are not repeated. Thank you, Nick and Brodie. Brodie Donegan was 32 weeks pregnant when she was run down by a drug-addled driver near her home, resulting in her unborn child dying. The baby girl, Zoe, was stillborn because the placenta that sustained her with oxygen was ruptured by the force of the impact, which pinned her mother against a tree for three hours on Christmas Day 2009. For many, this event and the subsequent trauma and healing would be unbearable, but it was further compounded by inadequacies in the law in bringing those responsible to account. To be told that the loss of a child simply did not count would have been heartbreaking. 24268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
This brings us to the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2), which has the object of amending the Crimes Act 1900 to recognise the separate existence of the foetus—of a pregnant woman—that is of at least 20 weeks gestation as a living person, so that proceedings may be brought against an offender who causes the unlawful destruction of, or harm to, any such foetus as proceedings for grievous bodily harm to the foetus rather than proceedings for grievous bodily harm to the pregnant woman. The bill does not apply to anything done in the course of a medical procedure or to anything done by, or with the consent of, the pregnant woman that causes the destruction of, or harm to, a foetus.
There has been much objection to this bill, with concerns about how it may have unintended consequences that will raise, again, the issue of women's rights in relation to the pro-choice or pro-life debate. Much commentary has been made about it being the slippery slope towards restricting abortion, representing a conceptual change which would see the foetus regarded as a person in its own right and leading to new interpretations of other existing law. Brodie never wanted to be dragged into the abortion debate and does not want her daughter's name on something to do with abortion. The couple needs closure and this bill is trying to achieve just that. This bill really is about justice—addressing a gap that does exist within the current framework.
For Brodie and Nick, their daughter existed because they held her, and they grieve for her every day. Under State and Federal laws they were obliged to give Zoe a name, apply for a birth certificate and death certificate, and hold a funeral. They were eligible for the baby bonus and parental leave but, in that same breath, the law does not recognise the separate existence of the foetus of a pregnant woman that is of at least 20 weeks gestation so that proceedings for certain offences relating to grievous bodily harm can be laid. This is simply wrong.
We as legislators are confronted each and every day in this place with legislation that we may or may not fully understand, nor do we really know whether there may be many unintended consequences, but we make a balanced decision, with the evidence and facts in front of us, judge the intent of the bill and decide whether or not to support it. For me the same methodology and rationale must be used for this bill, regardless of its sensitive and contentious nature. This argument of unintended consequences, if applied strictly to every piece of legislation, would see this place come to a halt. In reality, only through time and having our decisions tested in the courts will we really see whether these consequences exist. As leaders, we have been empowered to make these decisions.
I will now touch on some of the concerns relating to this bill. The first concern is that this bill has unintended consequences in relation to abortion. In response, I am comfortable that the bill is worded precisely to exempt abortion—including for doctors, nurses or other medical professionals involved, or for any act undertaken by the mother, or by another person with the mother's consent, including all medical procedures. In order to provide further surety and put an end to any concerns within the medical fraternity, an amendment will be moved to include medical treatments. This is not a slippery slope; it does not have unintended consequences. All matters relating to this bill are confined to the serious criminal act of an offender who takes away a woman's right to go full term in her pregnancy.
Another concern was that a medical practitioner carrying out a late-term gestation—post 20-week gestation—could potentially face charges because of the "personhood" status of the foetus in this bill. The fact is that the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) explicitly exempts all medical procedures. The bill cannot be any clearer. If it is a medical procedure carried out by medical professionals it is exempt. Again, in order to provide further surety and put an end to any concerns within the medical fraternity, an amendment will be moved to include medical treatments. A further incorrect concern was raised through the example that if a woman were to drink and drive a vehicle, resulting in an accident that ultimately caused the death of her unborn child, she would be liable to be charged under the proposed legislation. The fact, again, is that a woman is exempt from being charged.
New section 8A (4) (b), in part, states, "anything done by, or with the consent, of the pregnant woman concerned." The proposed amendments do not apply to anything done by or with the consent of a pregnant woman. In this scenario, the death of the unborn child is as a result of actions done by the mother, hence she cannot and will not be charged under the proposed law. I have raised only some of the concerns. Other members who speak to the bill, including the member for The Entrance in reply, will raise further concerns. I acknowledge and understand those who are concerned and anxious about what may unfold, but in making my decision I must rely on the bill before the House, take it at face value and make my judgement. As with many bills and legislation, it comes down to interpretation. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24269
The decision I have made today is one that I have made with peace of mind and peace in my heart. I have looked at the facts. I have also considered my own life's journey: the scars and regrets remaining from the actions of a reckless, scared young man and now, as a father, someone who has suffered on two occasions my wife's loss of pregnancy through miscarriage. It leaves a pain, an undeserved guilt and an ache that never goes away. Whether caused by an act of Mother Nature through miscarriage, by choice, or by a dreadful event such as was suffered by Brodie, we remain scarred and the event changes us. My experience does not compare with or lead me to understand the pain Brodie and Nick have endured and continue to endure. Each of us deals with trauma and shock differently. However, my experience influences my decision today to support the bill. My wife and I have been blessed with two beautiful children whom we love and adore, but there is a part of us that will always wonder what our lives would have been if circumstances had been different.
As humans it is hard for us to let go of our negative feelings and dismiss the thought "What if?" Intrusive thoughts, unwelcome ideas, memories and traumatic flashbacks repeatedly find their way into our thinking and shape who we become. If I had suffered the event that ended Zoe's life, I too would be seeking justice. It may be too late for Brodie, Nick and Zoe, but it may help others. When I met Brodie a few weeks ago I understood that she wanted to remedy an injustice by obtaining recognition that she had suffered a real loss, not just an injury to her body. Through her local member, the member for The Entrance, Mr Chris Spence, and each member in this House, Brodie has entrusted us to work to that end. The pro-choice campaign has always been about compassion, respect, inclusivity and empowerment, and this bill provides that for Brodie and Zoe.
I thank the members of my community who have contacted me on this issue in the past weeks. They gave me the determination to seek additional information to better understand the bill and examine the claims and counter-claims. I have taken their views into account and respect each of them for being engaged in this significant issue, which has taken me on an emotional rollercoaster ride. In a contemporary, sophisticated society such as ours, contentious and sensitive issues can and should be debated in the light of day, honestly and robustly, but we should always respect one another in the process. With the explanations I have given, together with the minor amendments proposed and my quest to be true to my community and myself, I say again that I will be supporting the bill. I congratulate all members who have contributed to this debate, regardless of their position and decision. They have acted with pronounced honesty and sincerity. I commend the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) to the House.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [10.33 a.m.]: I speak to the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) which has been brought before the Parliament by the member for The Entrance. The bill seeks to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to recognise the existence of the foetus of a woman who is pregnant, that is, of at least 20 weeks' gestation, so that proceedings for offences relating to grievous bodily harm to the foetus may be brought against an offender. I will not be supporting this bill and, as other speakers have done, I want to put on the record my reasons for my decision.
In his second reading speech, the member for The Entrance outlined the efforts of Mrs Brodie Donegan to have this bill before the House. Brodie was pregnant with Zoe when she was hit by a car on Christmas Day 2009 and, tragically, lost her baby. I express my deepest sympathy and condolences to Brodie and her partner, Nick, on their loss. The member for The Entrance has movingly told Brodie's story—much of it in Brodie's own words. What Brodie suffered is a tragedy and she and Nick continue to suffer. I have met with them both, and I thank the member for The Entrance for arranging that meeting. I thank them for their willingness to share their story with us—hard as that must have been, given what they have been through—so that we can better understand this bill and what it seeks to achieve.
I have also attended the parliamentary briefings that have been held with a range of organisations and examined the review by the Hon. Michael Campbell, QC, held in 2010. That review examined whether current offences—which now invoke an extended definition of "grievous bodily harm" to cover the destruction of the foetus of a pregnant woman, including offences related to dangerous and negligent driving—enabled the judicial system to respond appropriately to criminal incidents involving the death of an unborn child. This is a difficult issue and I know that members have grappled with it. We will have a conscience vote on this bill.
I understand what the member for The Entrance is seeking to achieve with this bill. In the words of Brodie, he seeks to provide a separate charge for the loss of a baby rather than what happened in her case, where Zoe was listed as an injury to Brodie. However, I must weigh up my understanding of that position against my concerns with this bill. They encompass the concerns of the many organisations that have contacted me, together with my pro-choice views about supporting a woman's right to control her own reproductive health. I have received many letters from constituents in my electorate who have urged me to oppose this bill. I am also 24270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
very mindful of the Michael Campbell review, in which he came to the conclusion that the current offences provide in the presence of appropriate culpability a relatively direct path to the punishment of an offender whose actions have resulted in the death of a foetus, albeit an essential feature being the infliction of grievous bodily harm upon the mother.
Michael Campbell acknowledged the concerns of Ms Donegan and those who take a similar position but he concluded that the current offences do allow the judicial system to respond appropriately. I acknowledge the efforts of the member for The Entrance to put qualifications and exemptions in the bill. However, I am concerned that they could have unintended consequences on women's access to pregnancy termination services in New South Wales. Family Planning Australia, the Women's Electoral Lobby and the New South Wales Women's Legal Services are just some of the organisations that have contacted me about this. Representatives of those organisations are present in the gallery today.
I reject the assertions by some members that I and others who take a similar position are misinformed. That is not the case. The difficulties with the bill that have been raised with me include the fact that these amendments to the Crimes Act will give legal personhood to a foetus. If this bill is successful, this will be the first piece of legislation in New South Wales that draws a distinction in personhood between a woman and the foetus that she is carrying. In other jurisdictions, recognising the foetus as an independent person has been the first step toward the prosecution of women where they have been deemed to have acted contrary to the interest of the foetus they are carrying. I understand that this is not the intention of the bill. I understand that the mover, the member for The Entrance, has made efforts to ensure that pregnancy termination services are not caught up by the bill. Nonetheless, the New South Wales Bar Association said in a letter dated 6 September 2013:
Once legislation is enacted which provides that an unborn child as defined in the Bill "is taken to be a living person" for the purposes of some offences, it will be very difficult to resist comparable changes to other offences including murder and manslaughter.
I strongly feel that until a foetus achieves an independent existence it should not be granted legal personhood in its own right. Giving personhood to a foetus may affect the lawfulness and accessibility of pregnancy termination services in New South Wales. Fears are held by a range of women's services that there is a real risk that this provision could be used in the future to attempt to restrict the circumstances in which terminations can be lawfully performed. The Australian Medical Association has also come to this conclusion and has indicated it does not support the view. It stated:
The view of the AMA (NSW) is that the current extended definition of Grievous Bodily Harm under the Crimes Act 1900 is sufficient and should not be amended. Any further extension of the legislation, to create a charge of grievous bodily harm for a child in utero, in our view, would have unintended consequences and flow on effects in other areas of medicine and, indeed, the law. Further, AMA (NSW) objects to any legislative amendment or creation of a criminal offence which recognises an unborn child as a legal entity independent of its mother. Our immediate concern is that such recognition would create unnecessary complications across several of our members' specialties, such as genetics and obstetrics.
It has been put to me also that even the most clearly drafted legislation can be the subject of argument and debate down the track as factual scenarios emerge that were not thought of when the law was drafted. I am persuaded by these points that have been put to me. It is undesirable to have as a legal starting point the fact that abortion is a criminal offence, in each case leaving women and their doctors vulnerable to legal arguments about whether any of the recognised exceptions apply. It is a tragedy when a woman loses a baby in an accident or through violent crime, as happened when Brodie and Nick lost Zoe. But I believe our legal framework has provisions to deal with this issue. In Government, Labor was responsible for amending the definition of grievous bodily harm specifically to include "the destruction of the foetus of a pregnant woman".
The Crimes Act and this amendment were reviewed and found to be appropriate. An offence of this nature causing destruction of a foetus already carries a penalty of a maximum prison sentence of 25 years. My understanding is that this bill does not seek to change that penalty. The member for The Entrance's desire to represent the wishes of Brodie Donegan, his constituent, is absolutely understandable, but my concern is that doing so creates a huge problem for many other women in this State who could be denied the services and help they need to procure a safe pregnancy termination. I do not want to see the protection of women go backwards in this regard by making terminations more risky and more dangerous in our State. Terminating a pregnancy is never an easy decision for a woman, but it happens and should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. I have seen too many sad circumstances not to fully support the right of a woman to access a safe, affordable pregnancy termination. A woman's right to termination is already tightly prescribed in New South Wales, and I cannot support legislation that will make it even harder for women to terminate pregnancies if that is their wish. For these reasons I will not be supporting this bill. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24271
Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.41 a.m.]: I offer my personal reflections and support for the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2). It is a great pleasure to stand in this Parliament and say to the full gallery of people that not often will they see this bipartisan approach whereby each member is given a conscience vote. Our personal reflections on a specific topic are largely made in private but a conscience vote enables us to express them publicly. We are not making our decision on party lines; rather, we are basing our decisions on our personal beliefs. Certainly, my reflections will be based on the values and principles instilled in me by my loving parents. I supported and abided by those principles when I raised my two children, who are now in their mid to late twenties and at an age where I hope in the near future they will have the great fortune to be blessed with children, as my wife and I were, and give us grandchildren.
I can only imagine how a mother may feel when she is pregnant. Often it is said that women bloom during pregnancy. I imagine they would have a great sense of pride. Certainly as a father I had a great sense of pride whilst my wife was pregnant. Women carry new life within them, regardless of when we believe that life is created. I believe life commences at conception; if it did not, then life would not commence at all. This bill draws a line in the sand at 20 weeks gestation of a foetus to be recognised in a court of law as life apart from the mother. The bill was brought about by the reckless destruction of a foetus, a life, carried by a mother named Brodie Donegan. Brodie was eight months pregnant and was mowed down by a "drug-addled driver", as reported by Miranda Devine. Brodie's baby girl was stillborn because the placenta that sustained her with oxygen was ruptured by the force of the car whilst her mother was pinned against a tree. One can only imagine how that mother would feel.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! People in the public gallery will resume their seats.
Mr RAY WILLIAMS: They are not upsetting me, Mr Deputy-Speaker. I am happy for people to move about.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I ask people in the public gallery to resume their seats.
Mr RAY WILLIAMS: One can only imagine the trauma Brodie Donegan experienced losing her child after this accident. The child's heart was still beating but after a caesarean section was performed the child—the foetus, call it what you will; I prefer to call it an unborn child—passed away. At present, under the Crimes Act 1900 grievous bodily harm is when a criminal offence committed upon a person does not include the foetus of a pregnant woman. When someone is charged with the irresponsible action of mowing down a person, as this car driver did to Brodie Donegan, we are discussing whether we also recognise that unborn child. I think any pregnant woman would want some recognition of the child she is carrying. That is my personal reflection. Any normal woman would feel not only the pain of the accident she suffered but also the anguish of losing her child.
The object of this bill is to amend the Crimes Act to recognise the separate existence of the foetus of a pregnant woman in at least the last 20 weeks of gestation. Therefore, I suppose one tries to come to terms with what constitutes a life. As I said earlier, I believe life commences at conception. Therefore, why is 20 weeks stipulated? The New South Wales Bar Association suggests that 20 weeks is arbitrary, but 20 weeks gestation is recognised in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. If a mother gives birth to a stillborn child at 20 weeks of age, that child has to be named and buried. Yet if a baby is destroyed through the actions of an irresponsible driver, as happened with Brodie Donegan, when the person who caused the accident appears before a court of law, no recognition is given of the baby, the foetus or unborn child. That is a travesty. The unborn child should be recognised.
I commend the member for bringing this motion to the House. As a parent who was present at the birth of both my children, raised them and watched them grow, and as a responsible member of my community having, as I said, followed the values instilled in me by my parents who raised me in a loving and caring way, I know how I would have felt had my wife been irresponsibly mown down, as Brodie Donegan was, and my unborn child was not recognised. Judges are asked simply to make a judgement on the suffering of one person and to disregard the foetus. Under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, Brodie Donegan's child had to be named and buried. So the law is in conflict. This bill has nothing to do with anything else other than recognising an unborn child at 20 weeks of age. The people in the gallery are nodding their heads in agreement. This bill, through further amendments, will ensure no further consequences other than what is stated. Should we 24272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
ask a judge to consider the loss of life of a foetus? Absolutely. The previous speaker talked about maximum sentences. No-one in this Parliament has argued more strongly for minimum sentences, especially—and I have stated publicly—for offences against children: the most vulnerable in our society.
Currently, maximum sentences are available, but judges should impose the maximum sentence to punish a person who hurts the most vulnerable in our society. If it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person has raped a child or has inflicted abuse on a child or sexually abused a child, that person should receive a minimum sentence. The impact of such abuse on a child's life and ability to live in society requires a maximum sentence. I return to the bill before the House. A judge should have the power to recognise that an unborn child has been injured in an accident. I want this bill to pass so that judges are able to recognise that mothers are affected, as was Brodie Donegan, by their unborn child's life being taken in an accident, and the punishment should reflect that. I commend the member for The Entrance for bringing this bill to the House, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer my personal reflections in support of the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2).
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) [10.50 a.m.]: I welcome the many people from our community who have joined us in the gallery to listen to the debate on this issue. I join the member for Hawkesbury in acknowledging the importance of the respectful way in which this debate is being conducted. Many members are conflicted about this issue. They are conflicted because they want to do the right thing by Brodie Donegan and mothers like Brodie Donegan. But many are concerned, based on expert legal advice, that the consequences of such legislation are unknown. What is known is that the bill would acknowledge a foetus as a person. This is potentially separate to and even at odds with the mother.
I oppose the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) because it could reduce women's access to safe and legal abortions and because the current law acknowledges a crime that results in the loss of a foetus. The bill creates a new crime for conduct that causes serious harm to or destruction of an unborn child and extends existing dangerous driving offences that result in the death or grievous bodily harm of a person to apply also to the death or serious harm of an unborn child. An unborn child is defined in the bill as a foetus of at least 20 weeks gestation or which has a body mass of 400 grams.
I assess the bill with an open mind. The story of Brodie Donegan is heartbreaking and sad. After being hit by a car driven by someone under the influence of drugs, she sustained injuries that led to an urgent caesarean, followed by a stillbirth delivery. The loss of a foetus as a result of being a victim of crime can be a significant loss to a pregnant woman and the law should acknowledge that loss. However, I strongly believe that the loss of a foetus is not a loss separate to the experience of the pregnant woman. A crime that results in the death of the foetus is a crime against the pregnant woman. A foetus is not a person until it is born. It relies entirely on the woman's body to exist. Creating an offence against the foetus separate to its mother by law recognises the foetus as a separate entity that has rights of its own. This has major legal ramifications for women's reproductive rights.
The rights of the foetus can be put at odds with the pregnant woman's rights. If the foetus has rights that should be protected against assault or recklessness, a legal argument could be made that a foetus should be protected from other harms. Although the bill explicitly excludes anything that is done during the course of a medical procedure or that is done by or with the consent of the pregnant woman concerned, it does not prevent the bill from creating a grey area in abortion law. A medical practitioner who performs an abortion or a woman who may obtain one, particularly in the later term of pregnancy, will have a new layer of criminality to consider and potentially negotiate through.
In New South Wales abortion is not a given medical procedure. Under the existing law, judges have to determine whether an abortion is lawful or unlawful. Anti-abortionists could use the offences under the bill to mount a case against a pregnant woman who has an abortion or the doctor who carries out the procedure that a crime has been committed against the foetus, thus resulting in grievous bodily harm. Consent also fails to protect some women and their medical practitioners. If a woman has an intellectual disability or a mental illness, consent may be difficult to establish. Medical practitioners working to ensure the best mental health and social outcomes of the pregnant woman will need to consider the legal risks in addition to her welfare. Consent could be irrelevant if a woman has a car crash due to reckless driving or if she takes an illegal substance that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth.
In overseas law, I understand that recognition of the status of a foetus has been used against pregnant women who have addiction problems. The courts could interpret passage of this bill as the Parliament's 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24273
endorsement that a foetus should be treated as a live being with regard to criminal activity. The bill inappropriately introduces the term "unborn child" in the Crimes Act. The term is emotive, contentious, medically incorrect and heavily used by anti-abortion campaigners. A child is born when he or she breathes life outside his or her mother's body. Prior to that, a woman is pregnant with a foetus, which is part of her body. A crime against a foetus is a crime against a pregnant woman. Existing laws recognise this and provide an avenue to ensure that judges take into account physical injury to a pregnant woman and loss of her foetus.
Under the Crimes Act, a person who harms a pregnant woman causing the loss of her foetus can be convicted of grievous bodily harm, regardless of whether or not the woman suffers injury. This is a serious crime. If intent is proven, the maximum sentence is 25 years. If the person was reckless, the maximum sentence is 14 years. Judges can take into account physical injury to a woman and the loss of her foetus when considering the severity of a crime and an appropriate sentence. The loss of a foetus is not left unpunished. It is hard to imagine the pain that a pregnant woman would experience if she miscarried or had a stillbirth delivery as a result of a crime committed against her. The law must recognise this as her loss, not a separate crime against the foetus.
The 2010 Campbell review, which was initiated by the former Government to investigate whether existing laws enabled justice in crimes that cause the loss of a foetus, noted that while a new offence would cover only a few cases, its wider implications would affect many more women. Reproductive rights are essential to gender equality. Article 16 (1) (e) of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, to which Australia is a party, states that women should be able to freely decide if and when they will have children and how many. This is supported by the wider New South Wales community. It concerns me that while women make up more than 50 per cent of the population, this bill will be voted on by members of this House of which fewer than a quarter are women.
This bill is opposed by the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, medical insurer MDA National, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Woman's Electoral Lobby, Family Planning NSW, the Women's Legal Service, the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance, the Women's Abortion Action Centre, the National Foundation for Australian Woman, the Equality Rights Alliance, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia and Pregnancy Help Australia. By giving legal status to a foetus, the bill will reduce women's reproductive rights, and I cannot support it.
Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands) [10.58 a.m.]: I make a brief contribution to this important debate on the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2). The object of the bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to recognise the separate existence of a foetus of a pregnant woman that is of at least 20 weeks gestation or has a body weight of 400 grams so that proceedings for certain offences relating to grievous bodily harm may be brought against an offender who causes the unlawful destruction of or harm to any foetus as proceedings for grievous bodily harm to the foetus rather than proceedings for grievous bodily harm to the pregnant woman. I acknowledge the enormous efforts undertaken by the member for The Entrance to bring this groundbreaking bill to this Parliament.
I also acknowledge Brodie Donegan, whom I recently met briefly. I place on record my deepest sympathies to Brodie and her family for the circumstances that have led to the introduction of this bill. Like other members, over the past 1½ months I have read copious amounts of opinion material—some expert, some not so—about the content of the bill and its potential unintended consequences. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the constituents in my electorate who have contacted me about this bill. There were not many, but I appreciated their thoughts and the time they took to avail me of their views and/or expertise. It will come as no surprise to members to learn that I am not a towering giant in the legal world, nor am I a mother, a parent or someone who has experienced the trauma that Brodie and others have. It was for that reason, among others, that I found it extremely difficult to sift through the often contradictory advice, opinion and alleged facts about the bill. But after reading the substantial documentation I was presented with about this matter it became clear to me that, as legislators, we should not lightly alter the current law in relation to the granting or assumption of personhood.
Drawing a distinction in personhood between a woman and the foetus she carries is incredibly significant. As the member for Marrickville said earlier, this is the first bill before this Parliament ever to seek to do that. Such a bill should be considered in depth and over a considerable period before a decision is made to proceed down that path or to alter the status quo. I read carefully the assurances given by the member for The Entrance and other eminent legal minds rebutting the concerns that have been raised by various organisations 24274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
about the unintended consequences of this bill. Conversely, I also read carefully the advice of the New South Wales Bar Association, the Australian Medical Association and the 2010 report on the Campbell review. I was left questioning how both sides of the debate could be right.
I have come to the view that I cannot ignore the expert advice of the New South Wales Bar Association, the Australian Medical Association, the 2010 report on the Campbell review and other eminent organisations that have serious concerns—and I believe legitimate concerns—about potential unintended consequences. They have also canvassed the view that the current law is sufficient for the judiciary to properly assess matters involving the death of a foetus. I believe we should utilise the committee processes of this Parliament to further consider the bill and its potential unintended consequences. This will help to allay my legitimate concerns and those of others. I suggest this not because I disagree with the intent of the bill but because, for the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I again thank Brodie and the member for The Entrance.
Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [11.03 a.m.]: The Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) seeks to recognise for the first time in Australia the grievous bodily harm of a person yet to be born as a standalone crime. Whilst the bill challenges some of our legal principles on life, it also potentially broadens the scope as to when the commencement of life should be recognised under the law. It has also opened up questions about rights: the right of a woman to choose and the right to be in control of her body. It is not my intention to cast judgement on the merits of the argument to which I have referred or on any belief or notions as to the extent of the concept of life an individual may hold. However, I will cast my vote in consideration of the purpose of the bill and the scope of its potential to achieve it.
The Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2), referred to as Zoe's bill, emanated from the very personal tragedy of Brodie Donegan and her family. Eight months pregnant, Brodie was the victim of a hit-and-run by a drug-affected driver while she was out for a walk near her Ourimbah home. The child Brodie was carrying did not survive; she was stillborn. Brodie and her partner, Nick, had to give their stillborn child a name; they chose "Zoe". They did so because the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act required it. According to the registry, Zoe was born. She may have been stillborn but she came into this world. However, at the trial of the driver responsible for the loss of Zoe—who was recognised by the law as having been born—Zoe was treated as an injury to Brodie. Any parent, and those who are about to be thrust into parenthood, can appreciate the indignity and injustice of having their hopes and dreams on the birth of their child shattered by the heinous act of another and then for that child to be treated as a limb or evidential fact upon which a culprit is held to account by the law.
With great respect to the arguments surrounding this bill, and with great respect to those who hold them dear, this bill is not about a woman's right to choose or what constitutes life; it is about justice. Not justice for the unborn person, but justice for those left behind who have had their hopes and dreams shattered by another with little or no respect for the real victims. Brodie and Nick's hopes and dreams were taken from them and they are seeking justice so they can have closure. Whilst they had to suffer the indignity of having their loss disregarded by the law as an "injury", we have the opportunity to prevent others from suffering the same indignity. Zoe's law contains only one schedule. Schedule 1 [2] seeks to insert new section 8A into the Crimes Act and is titled, "Offences in relation to the destruction of or harm to the foetus of a pregnant woman." New section 8A (1) provides a definition of an unborn child as being the foetus of a pregnant woman that is of at least 20 weeks gestation or, if that cannot be established, has a body mass of at least 400 grams.
New section 8A (2) (a) allows the courts to recognise a foetus that has reached the stage of development outlined in new section 8A (1) as a "living person". New section 8A (2) (b) allows for actions committed by another upon a foetus having reached that stage of development to be recognised as grievous bodily harm committed against the unborn person. Finally, new section 8A (3) confirms that such injury to a recognised foetus is a stand-alone offence, irrespective of any harm suffered by the expectant mother. New sections 8A (1) and (2) will allow an assailant whose actions are responsible for the loss of an unborn child to be held to account for everything that child means to its parents and family. It allows for justice.
I am satisfied that the limitations in this bill will protect the sanctity of the right of women to choose. It is made expressly clear in the provisions of the bill, which limit its applicability to holding to account individuals for their actions that amount to grievous bodily harm to another. New section 8A (4) (a) sets this out in black and white. It expressly prohibits the offences under this bill from applying to an action taken in the course of a medical procedure. It makes it clear that the actions of doctors and physicians when providing for the health needs of a woman will not fall foul of Zoe's law. New section 8A (4) (b) is equally clear that actions a 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24275
woman takes or consents to be taken upon her whilst pregnant will not fall foul of Zoe's law. There are no ifs or buts here. In plain language on the face of this instrument are the protections required to ensure that the right of a woman to choose or the work of a medical professional are not within the ambit of this bill.
I note that the legislation before us today is a second attempt at an earlier Zoe's law bill introduced at the beginning of the year. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile introduced a bill with a similar name and the same premise. The difference between this version of Zoe's law and its earlier incarnation is that this bill distinguishes at what point of a woman's pregnancy its provisions are to come into effect. In the previous Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 a new offence was created that would have applied to a "child in-utero", which meant to all stages of a woman's pregnancy. This incarnation of Zoe's bill does not do that. It effectively seeks to do one thing—that is, to provide justice. It is on those grounds, and those grounds alone, that I support this bill. Once again, I reiterate that my vote on this bill does not pass judgement upon the competing yet significant principles and arguments surrounding this legislation.
Mr BRYAN DOYLE (Campbelltown) [11.11 a.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2) and will vote for it. I thank my friend the member for The Entrance for bringing this bill before the House. If something is moral, eventually it will become legal. Under the Constitution the New South Wales Parliament is entitled to make laws for the peace, welfare and good governance of the people of New South Wales. In my inaugural speech in this place I spoke about the importance of leadership. For me, that is about not only values and what one stands for but also service and determination. On the issue of values, as I told the House in my inaugural speech, I was very fortunate to have a Catholic upbringing. I adhere very firmly to a pro-life approach and the view that life begins at conception, and I have had a career where I have been involved in the protection of life and property.
This amending bill extends the protection of the law to an unborn baby of 20 weeks. This is the stage at which a baby is entitled to a birth certificate and a death certificate—and in my opinion should be entitled to be protected by the law from serious offences. Some serious offences are listed in the bill: intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, predatory driving, dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, grievous bodily harm caused unlawfully or negligently, robbery or stealing from a person in circumstances of aggravation, and breaking and entering a dwelling and the infliction of grievous bodily harm therein. They are some of the most serious offences in our criminal law. The bill will extend protection to babies like Zoe. I thank those who in good faith took the time to make submissions to me from both sides of the argument. I thank them for their courtesy and the time they spent detailing their positions. As I said at the outset, I commend my friend the member for The Entrance for his courage and foresight in bringing this matter to the House, and I will be pleased to vote in support of the bill.
Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [11.15 a.m.]: I too make a contribution to debate on the Crimes Amendment (Zoe's Law) Bill 2013 (No. 2). I will not be supporting the bill. I am sure that like many others in this Chamber I approach this debate with a sense of great conflict and sadness because of the circumstances in which the bill has been formed. In speaking today I particularly acknowledge the courage and conviction of Brodie Donegan, the mother of Zoe, after whom the bill is named. Members will be well aware by now of the circumstances in which Brodie lost her baby at eight months gestation when she was hit on Christmas Day 2009 by a car driven by a drug-affected driver while taking a walk near her home. When the guilty sentence was handed down on the driver, the offence listed Zoe's death was an offence of grievous bodily harm against her mother, as is consistent with the Crimes Act 1900 under an amendment introduced in 2005.
The subsequent campaign, which has ultimately led to the introduction of this bill, stems from Brodie's belief that the legal system failed to recognise an offence against her unborn child and did not give due recognition to her daughter's existence. The legislation calls for an amendment to the Crimes Act 1900 to recognise the separate existence of a foetus of at least 20 weeks gestation. This is the point of development at which State and Commonwealth laws require birth and death certificates to be issued. I understand that Brodie has been involved in the drafting of this bill in consultation with her local member of Parliament, the member for The Entrance, whom I acknowledge today. I have read in various media reports and through her social media posts Brodie's explanations of her motivations for supporting this legislation, and I acknowledge her honourable intentions in doing so. I note also that she has described herself as pro choice and did not support the earlier Zoe's law bill introduced into the upper House by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile because she perceived it as a threat to women's rights.
Assisting in drafting this bill is not the only action that Brodie has taken to preserve the memory of her daughter. In 2012 she walked the London Marathon, raising more than $14,000 under the banner of her "Walk 24276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
for Zoe Campaign". That money was donated to the Miracle Babies Foundation, which supports premature and sick newborns. Since that event Brodie has continued to host a community Facebook page that supports that foundation and similar causes. In the face of such tragedy and ongoing grief, Brodie has helped many others through her subsequent charitable work in Zoe's name. Her good intentions with this bill are inarguable and underscored by her actions subsequent to the loss of Zoe. This bill has raised many legal and ethical questions, and community discussion has been vigorous and emotional. I note that there is significant passion from both sides of the debate and conflict.
We must remember where this stems from. Brodie is a good person who has been dealt a terrible hand. She lost a child in the most horrendous and inexplicable of circumstances yet she has conducted herself through this debate with dignity and grace. As she said in a recent television interview, she is not a vindictive person. She just wants the death in utero of her baby to be acknowledged properly. Much as I sympathise with the circumstances of Brodie and her family and understand her argument that her daughter's life deserves formal recognition, I am compelled also to consider the views of constituents who overwhelmingly oppose the passage of this bill. Few issues in recent memory have produced the volume of emails and letters to my office that this one has. The correspondence has ranged from heartfelt pleas by individuals to formal letters backed by lengthy documentation from interest groups representing women's organisations, medical practitioners and the legal sector, amongst others.
They all express essentially the same reason for opposing this bill—that is, the concern that by according legal personhood to a foetus we will open the door to challenges or future amendments that will undermine the lawfulness and accessibility of women to pregnancy termination. This aspect of women's reproductive rights is already tenuous given the lack of recognition in the Crimes Act of what constitutes lawful abortion. There is real apprehension in the community that this bill will redraw that line in the sand and could in future be used to justify prosecutions of women deemed to have acted against the interests of the foetus they are carrying.
I have heard the arguments of the member for The Entrance and other supporters that the provisions of the bill relate only to criminal acts and not medical procedures or anything done by, or with the consent of, the pregnant woman. However, the advice and representations I have received give me cause to believe those provisions are not enough to guarantee the preservation of the status quo in relation to abortion and a woman's right to decide. Those submissions have come from reputable and, I believe, fair-minded organisations such as the Australian Medical Association, the Law Society, the Bar Association, Community Legal Centres NSW, Family Planning NSW and Women's Health NSW. They express the view that the bill has a real potential to impede women's access to late-term terminations regardless of the often serious medical circumstances that might necessitate this option such as the discovery of a severe disability in the foetus or the development of a condition that has grave health repercussions for the mother.
I acknowledge counter legal argument that has been provided, but the very existence of that conflicting legal advice is evidence that this bill may well have unintended consequences. It is often said that the law is an ass. It is perhaps not that bad, but it is imperfect and compromises often have to be made in order to achieve the best outcomes. The Crimes Act 1900 provides judges with ample scope to adjust the severity of a sentence for the offence of committing grievous bodily harm depending on the nature and ramifications of the offence. The maximum prison sentences range from 10 years if a person recklessly causes harm to up to 25 years if there is intention to cause harm. In 2010 the Hon. Michael Campbell, QC, reviewed this provision to investigate whether the Act enabled the justice system to respond appropriately to criminal incidents involving the death of an unborn child. His conclusion is that it did, and he did not recommend the introduction of further offences.
One criticism of the bill is that it was introduced without formal community consultation. This is a discussion that we should be having as a community and perhaps the best way forward is to take this legislation back to the community and to air it appropriately to allow all points of view and arguments to be considered. Such a position is consistent with the view of some in government—possibly the majority—that if the bill is supportable it should have been prepared and presented as a Government bill. I would like to think there is a way in which we could accord recognition for the loss of a child, and the loss of the future that that life promised, but do so in a manner that does not compromise the reproductive decision-making rights of women as a consequence.
I am concerned by the application of a prescribed term of gestation or weight to be used to differentiate the way in which criminal law will be applied with the argument that it is in part the measure applied by the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. That Act was never envisioned as a trigger for the application of 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24277
criminal law. If the principle is correct then where does this stop? What would be the injustice for the loss in similar circumstances of a foetus of 18 or 19 weeks gestation or weighing 390 grams? Do the parents in such a case not feel the loss just as strongly? The law is imperfect and can never accommodate all circumstances to the satisfaction of everyone. Magistrates, however, are members of the community and are not immune to the sensitivities and deep feelings stemming from a tragedy such as the one that Brodie Donegan experienced, and they have powers to apply significant penalties based on an aggravated assault of a woman causing the loss of a foetus.
When I first heard of this bill I truly wanted to support the member for The Entrance in seeking the justice that Brodie Donegan desires. I entered this process with that intention but, having read the bill, I began to have grave doubts. Those doubts grew as I researched the matter further. I have not only relied upon the correspondence that has come to my office, but also taken it upon myself to talk to people in the community who are not generally exposed to these questions. They included some people of faith who have challenged me on other matters of principle during my years in Parliament. Overwhelmingly, the people I have spoken to have supported my view that this bill contains elements of concern and that it should not be supported at this stage. I appreciate the depth of feeling that is associated with this issue in the House and the community, but I cannot in all conscience support this bill in its current form.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Barbara Perry and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! It being before 11.30 a.m., the House will now consider General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).
JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [11.25 a.m.]: I move:
That this House notes:
(1) That John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, is a world-class treatment, training and research facility upon which the region depends.
(2) That there are proposals to cut emergency department nursing staff levels at the hospital by one nurse every morning and one nurse after midnight about four days a week.
(3) That the Hunter community rejects the proposal and demands an explanation from the Minister for Health in light of the Government's pledge not to axe front-line health services.
Earlier this year the Newcastle Herald reported that nursing shifts at the John Hunter Hospital emergency department would be slashed despite the Liberal Government's promise that no front-line services would be cut as a result of the $3 billion torn from the State's health budget last year and despite the fact that the emergency department is one of the busiest in the State. In fact, as a world-class treatment, training and research facility it represents one of the Hunter's most important assets and is a resource upon which the people of the Hunter vitally depend.
In the 2011-12 reporting year, the John Hunter Hospital admitted 40 per cent of Hunter New England Local Health District patients, representing a total of 76,133 patients and an increase of almost 1,000 from 2010 to 2011. Over the same period there were 69,436 reported emergency room attendances, 22,224 of whom were later admitted to hospital. Clearly, John Hunter is an extremely busy hospital with an equally busy emergency department and yet the Newcastle Herald reported that there would be one less nurse in the department during the morning shift and one less nurse after midnight four days per week. This is troubling.
As the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011-12 report on emergency department care indicates, emergency rooms nationwide start to become very busy during the morning. In the March to June quarter of 2013, which is the most recent time period for which the Bureau of Health Statistics has published information, emergency room attendances dropped 2 per cent compared with the same period in 2012. I know the staff are staying on par with the State average in treating the most emergent cases such as chest pains and severe burns, but they are falling behind in other triage categories. Indeed, 95 per cent of patients presenting with semi-urgent conditions such as sprained ankles or earaches were treated within 212 minutes of presentation. That represents one of the worst results in the State. 24278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
NSW Health has set a target of getting 71 per cent of patients out of the emergency departments within four hours. In the March-June quarter this year John Hunter succeeded in getting only 45 per cent of patients out within that time. The emergency department at John Hunter Hospital needs more staff, not fewer staff. Hardworking nurses who are already chafing under this Government's 2.5 per cent salary increase cap are now facing uncertainty with regard to the resources that they will have at work. Heath Services Union Hunter ambulance sub-branch president Peter Rumball was quoted in the Newcastle Herald as saying:
It's going to be chaos. We're going to have to sit there and nurse-maid patients in hallways.
He warned that the cuts at the John Hunter Hospital were "absolutely ludicrous". This is not the only issue facing nurses at the hospital. Seven operating theatre positions were left unfilled, despite being budgeted for. The Industrial Relations Commission took action to solve this issue, thanks to activism on the part of the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives Association. Nurses and Midwives Association spokesperson Linda Griffiths was quoted in the Newcastle Herald as saying:
The nursing staff have been forced to work large amounts of overtime to cover gaps in the roster and ensure service to the public is continued.
This is a situation that I am sure carries over to the emergency department. In the end, that is what this is all about: ensuring that nursing positions are appropriately staffed and resourced to better serve the public. The uncertainty caused by these cuts is dangerous not only for our nurses but also for the patients. With nurses having to care for more people with less support an easily treatable condition might spiral into something worse, requiring a lengthier and more costly stay that also increases the danger of infection and mortality.
An individual identifying as a nurse summed up the issue succinctly when commenting on the Newcastle Herald article and saying, "The nurses rarely get a tea break let alone go to the toilet! This is an emergency and patients' lives are at risk! John Hunter is the busiest hospital in the State and the staffing is atrocious!" I call on the Minister for Health to explain why this uncertainty is allowed to continue. I call on the Minister to reject outright any plans to axe front-line staff, including in the emergency department of John Hunter Hospital, and to seek out ways to ensure that nursing positions in the Hunter are adequately staffed and resourced.
Mr TIM OWEN (Newcastle) [11.32 a.m.]: I thank the member for Wallsend for moving this motion today as it gives me an opportunity to share with my colleagues all the great work that this Government has done in the Health portfolio at the John Hunter Hospital, in the Hunter region and in New South Wales. I must admit that the member for Wallsend was correct when she said that John Hunter Hospital is a world-class treatment, training and research facility. As the leading teaching hospital for northern New South Wales, John Hunter Hospital not only provides a range of emergency, critical care and surgical services for the people of the greater Newcastle area but also supports and works closely with a network of hospitals throughout the Hunter-New England region. Through this network of services and facilities, the district helps to ensure that people receive the best care possible.
However, this is where the member for Wallsend stops giving us facts and, in her usual fashion, makes fallacious statements. Let me make something very clear: the John Hunter Hospital emergency department is appropriately staffed with a mix of emergency physicians, advanced trainees, registrars, career medical officers, junior medical officers, nurses, allied health and clerical staff. Members should note that there are no plans to cut any emergency department nursing numbers. Today the usual argument was trotted out, "The Herald reported this." Could be, would be, maybe—it just does not stack up against the facts. In the past six months, 15 full-time equivalent nursing staff have been recruited and have already commenced work. This increase comprises 4.3 full-time equivalent new staff with the remaining 10.7 full-time equivalent as the result of successful recruitment efforts to fill vacant positions.
There are more than 95 full-time equivalent nurse positions in the John Hunter Hospital emergency department main area, and an additional 11 full-time equivalent positions in the emergency short-stay unit. In addition, John Hunter Hospital has established a regular reporting and monitoring plan to look at staffing and recruitment, including the recruitment of a permanent nurse educator and current recruitment action for a nurse manager position. The department also has a service manager. As we all know, matching resources to demand is an ongoing challenge in health. However, we have the greatest asset—our doctors and nurses as well as support staff, who are committed to our community. And we are committed to them. These dedicated professionals revive people who have suffered heart attacks, save stroke victims, carry out complex surgeries, repair victims of trauma accidents, care for vulnerable children, and welcome babies into this world. I commend the work that our doctors and nurses perform every day. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24279
In recognising the needs of patients, the emergency department of the John Hunter Hospital is working to improve even further the service provided, including triaging emergency patients and starting the treatment plan before asking patients to complete registration. Opposition members are committed to ensuring that the care of patients arriving by ambulance is transferred to the treating team as soon as possible and within clinically appropriate time frames. This is in addition to the implementation of new models of care such as the refinement of fast track and the introduction of team-based care, which is due to commence on 21 October 2013.
In April this year I had the immense pleasure of joining the Minister for Health, along with my Hunter parliamentary colleagues, to hear an announcement about the start of work to build a new paediatric intensive care unit at John Hunter Children's Hospital. The Hunter community has been calling for a dedicated paediatric intensive care unit for years and it was with great pride that I was there on the day when the Minister confirmed the New South Wales Government's commitment to this service. The addition of a paediatric intensive care unit under the management of the John Hunter Children's Hospital will provide the local community with integrated paediatric care while also complementing the quality existing services provided at the facility.
A paediatric intensive care service will complement our existing 42-cot neonatal intensive care and special care nursery service, which provides complex care for more than 1,100 premature and sick newborns each year. I might add that the O'Farrell Government is injecting an additional $7 million for the expansion of the neonatal intensive care unit at the John Hunter Children's Hospital—something that has been requested for years but Labor did nothing about it.
Dr Andrew McDonald: I was talking about commitments.
Mr TIM OWEN: Commitments do not achieve anything; that is the issue. Also, for the first time in 16 years there is record government investment in health services, an increase in nurse numbers and improvement in elective surgeries across New South Wales. Our Government recognises the need to improve the health system and we are getting on with the job of delivering that. The 2013-14 New South Wales health budget has increased by 5.2 per cent to a record $17.9 billion—a record spend. For the first time, more than 47,500 nurses are now working in public hospitals across the State. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals made a pre-election commitment to recruit an additional 2,475 nurses for our State's hospitals in our first term. In just two years— I hope that the people on the other side of the Chamber understand this—we have surpassed this goal and, in a first for New South Wales, there are now an extra 4,000 nurses working in the State's hospitals. This is in addition to the 900 extra doctors across the system as well as extra hospital staff and paramedics.
The Hunter community and the people of New South Wales commend the New South Wales Government's commitment to increasing nurse numbers, delivering a record health budget, improving elective surgeries and expanding much-needed services such as paediatric and neonatal intensive care units and the emergency department at the John Hunter Hospital. The New South Wales Government is getting on with the job of supporting front-line staff and ensuring that patients are provided with quality care when they need it most. It would be good if Opposition members stopped the scaremongering in which they continually participate. The facts always outweigh the scare.
Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [11.38 a.m.]: I, too, contribute to debate on the motion moved by the member for Wallsend relating to staffing numbers at the John Hunter Hospital. At the outset I acknowledge that the Health portfolio is one of the most difficult portfolios to manage. Along with the portfolio of Community Services, managing that portfolio is an almost thankless task. I am sure that when things go right running those portfolios is very fulfilling but more often than not we hear the bad-news stories. I wish to correct the member for Newcastle—he might want to change the record—when he said that he had been joined by his Hunter parliamentary colleagues. Perhaps he should have qualified his statement by saying that he had been joined by his Hunter Liberal colleagues as I do not believe invitations were extended to any other members in the area.
Be that as it may, we are talking about an important service. I acknowledge that some good things are being delivered but that does not mean we can dismiss, out of hand, concerns that are being raised by the local daily newspaper, the Newcastle Herald. That newspaper has done a great job over the years of raising issues in the community. In March it was reported in the Newcastle Herald that nursing shifts in the emergency department were to be cut, which I take at face value. If the member for Newcastle is correct, that is all well and good—we will take what we can that might improve the situation. The NSW Nurses Association said it had learned that emergency department staffing had been reduced by one nurse in the morning and one after midnight, four days a week. 24280 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
It was of great concern that this would lead not only to fewer staff on the ground to attend to patients but also to an increase in bed block. Bed block is already a real problem in the Hunter. A reduction in the number of staff causes fewer beds to be available in the emergency department and ambulance admissions are delayed due to delays in offloading. The John Hunter Hospital has the busiest emergency department in New South Wales and there is no justification for any reduction in nursing staff. There is a solid argument for the nursing staff numbers to be increased. The NSW Nurses Association believes fixed staff-to-patient ratios should exist in all emergency departments and suggests that the ideal proportion would be 1:3. That seems reasonable, given the high level of attention demanded by emergency patients.
It is apparent that all medical staff, including nurses, working at the John Hunter emergency department are stretched. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that fewer than half the emergency patients at the hospital—48 per cent—were moved through the department within four hours. That figure—not surprisingly— is much lower than the better-resourced but less busy emergency departments in Sydney, such as the Royal Prince Alfred and Royal North Shore hospitals. The figure falls well short of the target of 71 per cent. The Newcastle Herald used information obtained under a freedom of information request and established that almost 40,000 people over a six-year period had left emergency departments in the Hunter's public hospitals— including John Hunter—without treatment because they had been left to wait so long.
The paper also used freedom of information to obtain figures showing that the John Hunter emergency department had fewer staff than Sydney's Liverpool Hospital which treats thousands fewer patients. Specifically, John Hunter had 20 fewer full-time equivalent nurses and three fewer full-time equivalent advanced training doctors. Against this background, any reduction in the nursing staff at John Hunter Hospital simply cannot be countenanced. Instead, the Government should be taking a long, hard look at the figures and move to increase the nursing staff levels that this busy emergency department demands. Alternatively, the Government could invest in other facilities that would take some of the demand off the John Hunter Hospital, as has been proposed for southern Lake Macquarie. We would love a public hospital in that area, so I ask the Government to generously offer some assistance.
Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [11.42 a.m.]: I oppose the motion moved by the member for Wallsend. As the leading teaching hospital for northern New South Wales, John Hunter Hospital not only provides a range of emergency, critical care and services for the people of the greater Newcastle area but also supports and works closely with the network of hospitals throughout the Hunter-New England region. Through this network of service and facilities the district helps to ensure that people receive the best care possible. The district continually works hard to ensure that it has the right level of nursing staff to match activity. There are no plans to cut any emergency department nursing numbers. In fact, in the past six months 15 full-time equivalent nursing staff have been recruited and have already commenced work. This increase comprises 4.3 full-time equivalent new staff with the remaining 10.7 full-time equivalent as the result of successful recruitment efforts to fill vacant positions.
Our priority is to ensure that we have the right level of nursing staff to match emergency department activity. Nursing rosters have been redesigned to allow a more even spread of skilled staff and to ensure that staffing numbers are consistent across every shift. There are over 95 full-time equivalent nurses for the John Hunter emergency department main area and an additional 11 full-time equivalent nurses in the emergency short stay unit. John Hunter Hospital has established a regular reporting monitoring plan to look at staffing and recruitment, including the appointment of a permanent nurse educator and current recruitment action for a nurse manager position. It has in place a service manager. The sanctimonious attitude of those opposite on the issue of nursing is breathtaking.
The main reason nurses gave for leaving the John Hunter Hospital prior to the last State election was the implementation of the balanced rostering system. It was a computer-generated system which meant nurses had no say in the shift they worked and no capacity to swap shifts. It was a trickle-down system. Nurses were rotating on a particular roster and eventually their turn would come around. If a nurse had a husband who was a police officer, for example, there was no flexibility in the roster to match up their work hours. Nurses were leaving, and threatening to leave, the John Hunter in droves but the silence from those opposite was deafening. All it required was a simple human resources exercise to fix it. One of the first things the Hon. Jillian Skinner did when she became Minister was to remove that balanced rostering system dispelling anxieties that nursing staff at the John Hunter Hospital had as they were again able to take into account family or other personal commitments. Those opposite puff sanctimoniously about nursing but they have made no comment about the improvements to rostering. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24281
The Government has provided an additional 4,000 nurses in New South Wales. In the Hunter-New England region of the John Hunter Hospital we have provided additional capital funding that will help to ease some of the bottlenecks in that hospital. An amount of $7 million has been provided for the neonatal intensive care unit and $13 million has been allocated for the establishment of a paediatric intensive care unit. Those funds will help unlock some of the blocks that have existed in the hospital that were ignored by those opposite. Members opposite cry crocodile tears about nursing but the greatest threat to nursing numbers in our region was the rostering system implemented by them. When I was running as a candidate, I was approached by many nurses who said that they would not be able to work for the John Hunter Hospital any longer but would need to take work in the private system where a flexible roster was available. Those opposite should not cry crocodile tears and sanctimoniously lecture Government members who have done the right thing by staff of the John Hunter Hospital.
Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [11.44 a.m.]: There is much to agree on from both sides in this debate. The first point I make is that John Hunter Hospital is a world-class hospital. It is one of the world's great hospitals, which is why this debate is so important. Those opposite have read speeches into the Hansard that have been written by the ministry. I will talk about some facts. Last year the Australian Medical Association surveyed 1,200 doctors. Only 7 per cent of doctors thought that things had improved with the election of the O'Farrell Government; 54 per cent felt that things were worse; and 38 per cent felt that things were no better. The Bureau of Health Information, set up by the Labor Government, has produced facts on the performance of John Hunter Hospital, including the emergency department. The April to March figures for 2013 are illuminating as they show that the John Hunter emergency department is understaffed.
In April to June this year the emergency department saw 2 per cent fewer patients than in the previous year, yet waiting times in every triage category are longer than the State average. The most illuminating figure is the ninety-fifth percentile time to start treatment. That means that one in 20 patients in each triage category will commence treatment after this time. In 2008 for triage category 2, that 90 percentile time was 22 minutes; it has now gone to 38 minutes. That means that one in 20 patients who needs to be seen within 10 minutes for an urgent problem—severe injury or pain—is waiting 40 minutes to be treated. In triage category 3, the time has increased from 99 to 145 minutes; and in triage category 4 from 128 minutes in 2008 to 212 minutes. That means waiting nearly four hours not to be treated but just to be seen.
When I last ordered a triage category 4 presentation in 2006, about one in 10 children within that triage category required admission to hospital. Most of the triage events are in this category because these are the patients who are not identified as being as sick as they really are. At least one in 20 patients attending John Hunter Hospital receives unacceptable treatment by community standards even before being seen by a professional. It beggars belief how those opposite can read ministry letters saying that the emergency department is appropriately staffed. If the emergency department were appropriately staffed, nurses would not be taking industrial action. If the nurses love the current Government so much, they would not be in the middle of a campaign to ensure patient safety is protected with adequate numbers of nursing staff. When emergency departments go into meltdown, as happens regularly at John Hunter Hospital, things go wrong.
Mr Tim Owen: Come on.
Dr ANDREW McDONALD: The member for Newcastle says, "Come on." He has never worked in an emergency department that has gone into meltdown. I can tell him that when they do, things go wrong and patients suffer. These facts the member asked me to quote are quite clear. The risk to safe patient care in John Hunter Hospital is increasing because, as the Government's figures show, it is one of the busiest emergency departments in the State. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity; lots of young nurses and doctors would give an arm and a leg to be able to work in the John Hunter Hospital emergency department. It takes time to learn how to work in an emergency department. Staff cannot just be seconded when the place is in chaos. Staff have to be employed and trained, all of which takes time. These figures are an indictment of the Government's approach to John Hunter Hospital. Anyone who says that hospital's emergency department is staffed appropriately clearly has not spoken to one staff member or patient who has attended in the past 12 months.
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [11.48 a.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Charlestown and Macquarie Fields for their contributions. The member for Newcastle commenced his contribution by talking about the great work by the Liberal Government in the Hunter Health portfolio. I wonder what the 890 people seeking surgery and consultations at a non-existent eye-care clinic shut by the Liberal Government a year ago feel about the great work in Hunter Health. They are forced to either travel to Sydney for treatment, meaning that other people have to take time off work to accompany them because they cannot see, or undergo expensive consultations in Newcastle, if they can afford them. 24282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
I wonder what people think, certainly in the John Hunter Hospital emergency department, about the 41 per cent of people not being treated in the adequate time frame because the emergency department is not meeting its target. How do they feel about the great work of the Liberal Government getting on with the job in the Health portfolio in the John Hunter Hospital? I agree with the member for Newcastle that the proposed opening of the paediatric intensive care service will be great, as we all do on this side of the House. It is a wonderful and necessary proposal. Like the member for Lake Macquarie, despite the fact that John Hunter Hospital sits squarely in my electorate of Wallsend, my invitation to the opening must have been lost in the mail. Liberal members talk about getting on with the job. Why then are nurses in the disability sector paid less than their public hospital counterparts? If the Liberal Government is getting on with the job, why are nurse vacancies so high at the Stockton Centre?
The member for Lake Macquarie voiced concerns that John Hunter Hospital emergency department has fewer nurses than the Liberal Government states. I certainly agree with him: there is no justification for staff cuts in that department. The member for Charlestown referred to government bureaucrats' weasel words about nursing recruitment and that staffing numbers are consistent across every shift. Nurses are currently taking industrial action at John Hunter Hospital because of staffing cuts. The member for Macquarie Fields spoke eloquently about health, as he always does. We all agree with him that the John Hunter Hospital is world class— no question about that. However, it is worrying that the Australian Medical Association says that 54 per cent of those in the health industry who answered its survey state that health services have been worse under the Liberal State Government. Sadly, the facts demonstrate the severe understaffing of the John Hunter Hospital. I hope members support the motion, in particular the member for Newcastle and the member for Charlestown because, like me, their constituents and community members access John Hunter Hospital. We need to make sure that the emergency department is adequately staffed and meets the target of treating 71 per cent of patients within four hours. I urge all members to support the motion.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 22
Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Robertson Ms Burney Dr McDonald Ms Tebbutt Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Watson Mr Daley Mr Park Mr Zangari Mr Greenwich Mr Parker Ms Hay Mrs Perry Tellers, Mr Hoenig Mr Piper Mr Amery Ms Hornery Mr Rees Mr Lalich
Noes, 58
Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Provest Mr Aplin Mr George Mr Roberts Mr Ayres Ms Gibbons Mr Rohan Mr Baird Ms Goward Mr Rowell Mr Barilaro Mr Grant Mrs Sage Mr Bassett Mr Gulaptis Mr Sidoti Mr Baumann Mr Hazzard Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Ms Hodgkinson Mr Souris Mr Brookes Mr Humphries Mr Speakman Mr Casuscelli Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Conolly Dr Lee Mr Toole Mr Constance Mr Marshall Ms Upton Mr Cornwell Mr Notley-Smith Mr Ward Mr Coure Mr O'Dea Mr Webber Mrs Davies Mr Owen Mr R. C. Williams Mr Dominello Mr Page Mrs Williams Mr Doyle Ms Parker Mr Edwards Mr Patterson Tellers, Mr Elliott Mr Perrottet Mr Maguire Mr Flowers Mr Piccoli Mr J. D. Williams 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24283
Pair
Mr Furolo Mr Stokes
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): I have been requested by the Parliamentary Lions Club to remind all members there is a barbecue on the ninth floor. I am assured that the steaks are not as tough as they were last time and are in plentiful supply. I urge those members who have not yet eaten to attend the ninth floor, pay your money and enjoy your lunch.
ILLAWARRA RESOURCES FOR REGIONS
Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [12.03 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) Thanks the Deputy Premier for reviewing the Resources for Regions Program and including Wollongong Local Government Area as one of the beneficiaries.
(2) Notes that the Resources for Regions Program will return $160 million to mining affected communities.
(3) Notes the failure of lllawarra Labor members to raise this issue.
I commend the Deputy Premier and The Nationals members, in particular, for their strong advocacy of the Resources for Regions program. This program, which benefits local communities, is now government policy and is working well across rural and regional New South Wales. Following my representations to the Deputy Premier, I am extremely pleased that the Wollongong local government area has been classified as significantly indirectly affected by mining and is now eligible to apply for funding. Even though I do not represent an electorate in the Wollongong local government area, I stumped up because members from the Labor Party were too busy playing their factional games. The member for Wollongong, who was trying to get rid of Stephen Jones, and the member for Shellharbour, who was defending a preselection, were too busy to focus on issues affecting the Illawarra community.
Ms Noreen Hay: Even if you don't take credit for it, you are a plagiarist.
Ms Anna Watson: This is the Illawarra's free-range chicken additive.
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Opposition members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The member for Kiama will be heard in silence.
Mr GARETH WARD: Over the next four years $160 million in funding will be allocated for mining-affected communities. The Resources for Regions program provides grants for areas experiencing unique direct and indirect pressure on their infrastructure and services as a result of mining activity. There is no doubt that the Wollongong local government area meets the criteria. A subsequent analysis of mining-related truck movements identified that Wollongong City Council was eligible to apply for funding in the 2013-14 financial year. The deadline was extended by the Deputy Premier to ensure—
Ms Noreen Hay: Someone give Gareth a drink.
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Sorry, Gareth, I should be looking after you.
Mr GARETH WARD: Thank you, Minister. One person who does not look after me or her constituents is the member for Wollongong. She is sitting on the Opposition benches today because she did nothing on this issue. The Nationals Minister for Local Government looks after communities; the member for Wollongong does not.
Ms Noreen Hay: What would you know?
Mr GARETH WARD: I know a lot about the member for Wollongong, and if she does not stop telling lies about me I will start telling the truth about her. She should behave. The Wollongong community can 24284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
seek significant grants through the Resources for Region program to offset the impacts of mining. Potential applicants include local government, business, non-government organisations and community groups. The New South Wales Government will be looking for innovative approaches for the delivery of community infrastructure, including business projects that seek to deliver infrastructure with common use benefits. Funding for infrastructure projects will be allocated through a competitive grants process following consultation with stakeholders.
The deadline for expressions of interest was Tuesday 11 June, and the community made a significant contribution for those projects. For those who are interested in the application process, I encourage them to visit www.business.nsw.gov.au/assistance-and-support/grants/regional-programs/resources-for-regions. I advise the House of a recent announcement concerning the Resources for Regions program. Benefits have flowed as a result of the Illawarra and Wollongong being included in this program. Under the first round of the New South Wales Government Resources for Regions program, $4.5 million in funding has been allocated to upgrade the Cordeaux Road and bridge.
Wollongong City Council plans to upgrade the narrow and poorly aligned Cordeaux Road and bridge, which carries 4,070 light vehicles and 170 heavy vehicles per day to and from the Dombarton coalmine. This funding will enable the construction of a new shared path linking the village of Mount Kembla and the Dombarton coalmine to the wider pathway network. The project will improve access to the mining village, provide a safer road connection for mining access, renew road assets that have been damaged by heavy vehicle use and improve access to the wider community.
The Government is committed to reinvesting in our region and supporting the generation of mining wealth to provide improved local infrastructure and services. I note that some comments have been made about Councillor Bede Crasnich, who is a friend of mine. Councillor Crasnich is an excellent councillor who is doing wonderful work on the council. I commend him for the strong stance he took recently on the discount factory outlet. I also commend the member for Wollongong for taking a similar stance on that project. She seeks to encourage, as do I, our councillor colleagues to support jobs and investment, but that is not always recognised. On this occasion, Councillor Crasnich said:
These infrastructure upgrades are essential for Cordeaux Heights residents. The flow of traffic from Cordeaux into the rest of Wollongong will be greatly improved with these funds. The former government failed to provide these upgrades and the O'Farrell Government has delivered yet again on another major infrastructure project to benefit the city of Wollongong.
The Liberal Party and The Nationals are delivering for Wollongong where Labor failed. Labor had the opportunity to deliver so many projects. Those opposite talk about hospital upgrades, improved access to rail and jobs but never do they deliver. They are all talk. The residents of Wollongong have woken up to the corruption, the rot and the awful treatment they received at the hands of those opposite. Indeed, that is why we now have four Liberal councillors to match the four Labor councillors on Wollongong City Council. Similarly, on Shellharbour City Council we have two Liberal councillors to match two Labor councillors.
The Resources for Regions program offers a total of $120 million in 2013-14, which is to be spread across two rounds of funding. In the first round for 2013-14 some 64 expressions of interest, totalling $338 million, were received from the eight eligible local government areas. The total available funding for the first round was approximately $40 million. I commend the Deputy Premier for his initiative, The Nationals for pushing for this proposal and, of course, the Premier for adopting it. I condemn those opposite.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [12.10 p.m.]: What a performance we have seen once again from the member for Kiama. The member for Kiama could not lie straight in bed. He is a joke. He has just congratulated the Premier, the Government and himself. He gave himself credit on about five separate occasions in the course of his five-minute speech. I thank the member for Kiama for nothing. I thank the Government for nothing. The Government is selling the Port Kembla port for nearly $700 million and then giving itself a pat on the back for putting $100 million back into Wollongong. Let me tell the member for Kiama what I think.
Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The member for Wollongong has just demonstrated that she does not understand the difference between $100 million in funding and the Resources for Regions program. The member for Wollongong should sit herself down and read the motion before making her contribution.
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Wollongong will confine her remarks to the motion. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24285
Ms NOREEN HAY: That is what I am doing.
Mr Gareth Ward: You are all over the place.
Ms NOREEN HAY: I am dealing with your comments. The motion notes the failure of Illawarra members of Parliament in this place, which includes the member for Kiama and the guy sitting next to him, the member for Heathcote. The member for Kiama gave a Liberal councillor a pat on the back and then spoke about how wonderful it is to receive $4.5 million in funding to upgrade Cordeaux Road and bridge.
Mr Gareth Ward: Are you against it?
Ms NOREEN HAY: The member said he had pressured the Government into providing funding of $4.5 million to fix the road. The Government is supposed to undertake these projects, you dope. I turn to the Resources for Regions program. The Government has failed to install the easy access lift at Unanderra station, which it promised in its election campaign. What about the almost $600 million ripped out of our region by the O'Farrell Government from the sale of the port? That money was sent elsewhere; namely, to the electorate of Kiama. It is no wonder the member for Kiama is sucking up, as usual. What about the Government's failure to fill 200 child protection caseworker vacancies in Wollongong? Every time an issues arises where the Government fails the people of Wollongong we do not see or hear from the member for Kiama. Yet today in the House he gives himself credit for projects in my electorate—
Mr Gareth Ward: That is because we don't fail them.
Ms NOREEN HAY: You don't fail them? Tell that to the schools that are unable to obtain the maintenance they require. Tell that to public housing tenants when you sell off all the housing stock and do not replace it. Tell that to the people on the public housing waiting list. Tell that to the people who are being housed in Piccadilly Centre in a disgraceful situation because your mob is selling off the housing stock in the Illawarra and not replacing it. What does the member for Kiama have to say about that? The member for Kiama does not criticise that action by the Government. What about the Government cutting the Illawarra Advantage Fund? When did the member for Kiama criticise that action in this place?
Mr Lee Evans: Point of order—
Ms NOREEN HAY: At last, the member for Heathcote speaks.
Mr Lee Evans: The member for Wollongong should be drawn back to the leave of the motion. Would the member for Wollongong like a copy of the motion?
Ms NOREEN HAY: Lee, sit down. The member for Kiama should not have involved you; you are too nice.
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I remind the member for Wollongong that I have not ruled on the point of order. I am sure that the interjections will cease if the member confines her remarks to the motion. I direct the member for Wollongong to return to the leave of the motion.
Ms NOREEN HAY: The third paragraph of the motion talks about the failure of members who represent electorates in the Illawarra and the Resources for Regions program. The motion is about the Government's failure to maintain and improve resources in the Illawarra. That is what I am referring to. The caseworker vacancies and the cutting of the Illawarra Advantage Fund relate to the region's resources. As well, there have been cuts in funding to the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter service. A $5.7 million cut in the budget papers this year from funding for the supervision of offenders and community service groups directly affects my electorate. The plan to cut $4 million from the Ambulance Service of NSW will put lives at risk across the State. I have raised in this place the lack of resources to the Ambulance Service of NSW, the State Emergency Service and a number of other emergency services.
Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: The bodies to which the member for Wollongong refers are worthy causes and deserving of debate in this Parliament, but they are not relevant to the motion. The motion relates to the Resources for Regions program. The member for Wollongong should be directed to return to the leave of the motion. 24286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! I uphold the point of order. The motion relates to the Resources for Regions program, not resources within regions of New South Wales. The member for Wollongong will return to the leave of the motion.
Ms NOREEN HAY: The member for Heathcote and the member for Kiama do not want to hear about what is happening in the Illawarra. All they want to do is come into this place and criticise local members whilst giving themselves a pat on the back. They do not want to hear about the services required in the Illawarra. The member for Kiama gives himself credit for obtaining $4.5 million from the Resources for Regions program to upgrade a road and a bridge, which is a project the Government should undertake anyway. The motion refers to the failure of members who represent electorates in the Illawarra in this place. I find it absolutely abhorrent that the member for Kiama and the member for Heathcote do not come into this place to defend our region. They should have a bit of courage. They should tell the O'Farrell Government that our region needs more and get them to deliver. They should start supporting the community instead of their career paths.
Mr LEE EVANS (Heathcote) [12.17 p.m.]: The motion moved by the member for Kiama states:
That this House:
(1) Thanks the Deputy Premier for reviewing the Resources for Regions Program and including Wollongong Local Government Area as one of the beneficiaries.
(2) Notes that the Resources for Regions Program will return $160 million to mining affected communities.
(3) Notes the failure of Illawarra Labor members to raise the issue.
Ms Noreen Hay: That is your problem, Lee—
Mr LEE EVANS: I have changed.
Ms Noreen Hay: What a shame.
Mr LEE EVANS: Part of the problem is that those on the other side are unable to recognise the talent of the member for Kiama. I congratulate the member for Kiama on drawing the attention of the Deputy Premier to the Illawarra region missing out on its fair share of funding. The member for Wollongong may or may not be confused as to what is and is not a region, but the member for Kiama has convinced the Deputy Premier that the Wollongong area needs assistance and it will receive it. I will highlight some of the programs available under this scheme: the Jobs Action Plan and the Payroll Tax Rebate Scheme. One of the key priorities of the New South Wales Government is the Jobs Action Pan. This plan targets the creation of 100,000 new jobs in New South Wales from July 2011.
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: The member for Heathcote has moved away from the leave of the motion.
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Heathcote will return to the leave of the motion.
Mr LEE EVANS: I remind the member for Wollongong that I am talking about regional support programs. The Jobs Action Plan, the Regional Industries Investment Fund, business investment projects, Aboriginal business development, business support and tools, and Small Biz Connect are some of the programs available under this funding. Obviously the member opposite has not read about these programs. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, businesses that increase their employment levels will receive a payroll tax rebate following the employment of each additional employee. As we know, employment in New South Wales is created not by government but by small business: they are the largest employers in New South Wales.
The Regional Industries Investment Fund [RIIF] has been established to drive economic growth in regional New South Wales as well as to enhance the economic attractiveness of regional areas. Financial assistance is available under this fund for projects across regional New South Wales that result in or promote economic outcomes for the State. Support is available for investment projects that contribute to regional population growth through the creation of new jobs or, in special circumstances, the retention of existing jobs in regional areas. This is addressing everything the member for Wollongong complains about. We hear from her, day in and day out, "What about Wollongong?" The Government has done something positive here. The member for Wollongong should give the member for Kiama a pat on the back and say, "You have done a 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24287
fantastic job for the people of Wollongong." His electorate lies just outside the electorate of the member for Wollongong. I, and I think everyone on this side of the House, congratulate the member for Kiama on fighting for the people of the Wollongong region to get this regional funding.
Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [12.21 p.m.], in reply: This is just typical: The Opposition had the opportunity to provide another speaker to debate this motion and it has not done so. No other Opposition member representing an Illawarra electorate spoke to the motion—there was only one. The member for Wollongong said that the Government should be undertaking these projects anyway. I remember the history of projects in my electorate, such as, the upgrades to the Shoalhaven hospital and the Princes Highway. Did we see those projects being done when the Labor Party were in government? No, there was nothing forthcoming from the Labor members who are now in opposition. Yet now they talk about projects.
Ms Anna Watson: What about the Albion Park bypass?
Mr GARETH WARD: Like a salmon jumping onto a hook the member for Shellharbour says, "What about the Albion Park bypass?" In 16 years of government we saw no action on this from the Labor Party. This Government allocated $100,000 in its first budget and $1 million in this current budget to that project. We saw no action on this project from the feckless lot opposite when they were in government. They did not care about the Illawarra then and they do not care about the Illawarra now. We are talking about a motion that relates to Wollongong. We might think that the member for Wollongong would say, "Fair cop, it is great to see that the Government is doing things." But not once did the member for Wollongong mention the people of Cordeaux. I am going to write to the people of Cordeaux and provide them with a copy of the Hansard so they can see that the member for Wollongong had the opportunity to talk about one of their issues, to commend the Government and to say thank you on their behalf. But, of course, all the member opposite did was to criticise. She raised a series of concerns, a lot of which were fictitious. The member for Wollongong considers this issue so insignificant that she did not mention it in this debate. That is a great shame.
I take this opportunity to commend the Deputy Premier and the Government for bringing forward these funds for the Illawarra and Illawarra roads. I will respond to a comment of the member for Wollongong about not having a go at our own Government. Members on this side of the House, and I note the Minister for Finance and Services is present, would agree that the first ones to get stuck in on behalf of the Illawarra are me, the member for Heathcote and the member for the South Coast. We will stand up for the Illawarra. I remind the member for Wollongong that we have done this together. On the issue of the aeromedical helicopter we stood together as a region. The party lines did not matter; we stood together. It was the same with the issue of getting a positron emission tomography [PET] scanner. We stood together on that issue.
Ms Anna Watson: We are still waiting for the delivery of that.
Mr GARETH WARD: Again the salmon jumps onto the hook. The member opposite asks when the scanner will be delivered. The contract is signed. We have signed a contract with Primary Health Care. The deal is done and the scanner is on the boat and on its way here. What we have seen from the member for Shellharbour is the politicising of cancer treatment in the Illawarra, quite shamefully. I think that is absolutely disgraceful.
Ms Anna Watson: Point of order: I ask the member for Kiama to withdraw his last comment. I would never politicise people with cancer. I have family members who have cancer and I had family members who died from cancer. I want that comment withdrawn.
The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Shellharbour had an opportunity to contribute to the debate and chose not to do so. I cannot direct any member to withdraw a comment. There is no point of order.
Mr GARETH WARD: I will withdraw the comment. However, I will say that I was disappointed with the comments made by the member for Shellharbour about this issue. I would not want to offend her in that way, but I will say that I was disappointed with her behaviour on this matter. The Government has a good story to tell in Wollongong and in the Illawarra. We are fixing up the mess we were left by investing in the region— be it the $106 million we are investing in Wollongong Hospital for elective surgery, the $27 million we are spending to create 700 new car parking spaces, the construction of the new Shell Cove station, the improvements to the Illawarra Cancer Care Centre and cancer services at Wollongong Hospital or the investments we are making through the Resources for Regions program. I acknowledge the hardworking 24288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
Minister for the Illawarra, the Hon. John Ajaka. He is out there campaigning for Wollongong every single day. I am proud to be part of a Government that is not only cleaning up the mess we were left with but also getting on with the job of investing in our region.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mr Roberts Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mr Rohan Mr Barilaro Mr Grant Mrs Sage Mr Bassett Mr Gulaptis Mr Sidoti Ms Berejiklian Mr Hazzard Mr Souris Mr Brookes Ms Hodgkinson Mr Speakman Mr Conolly Mr Holstein Mr Spence Mr Constance Mr Humphries Mr Toole Mr Cornwell Mr Issa Ms Upton Mr Coure Dr Lee Mr Ward Mrs Davies Mr Marshall Mr Webber Mr Dominello Mr O'Dea Mr R. C. Williams Mr Doyle Mr Page Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Ms Parker Mr Evans Mr Patterson Tellers, Mr Gee Mr Perrottet Mr Maguire Mr George Mr Piccoli Mr Rowell
Noes, 20
Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Robertson Ms Burney Dr McDonald Ms Tebbutt Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Watson Mr Daley Mr Park Mr Zangari Mr Greenwich Mr Parker Tellers, Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Amery Ms Hornery Mr Rees Mr Lalich
Pairs
Mr Bromhead Mr Furolo Mrs Skinner Mr Hoenig
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
ILLAWARRA PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [12.37 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) Commends the Minister for Transport for progressing the upgrade of Oak Flats, Kiama and Moss Vale railway stations.
(2) Notes that the Minister has released tenders for the new Shell Cove railway station.
(3) Commends the Minister for making significant improvements to public transport in the Illawarra.
I am delighted to move this motion because the Illawarra has a great story to tell about public transport improvements across the region. There is one member who continues to tell a not-so-truthful story about the improvements, and I am glad to see her in the Chamber. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24289
Mr Ray Williams: Name her.
Mr GARETH WARD: For the benefit of my friend and colleague the member for Hawkesbury, I am referring to the member for Shellharbour. It just so happens that I have stumbled across a press release by the member for Shellharbour about the provision of 230 new car spaces that will make a major improvement to parking at Oak Flats. The additional spaces are needed because the former Labor Government built a local area command police station but did not provide any car spaces at the site. Shock and horror, what happened? Police officers working at the station parked in the commuter car park, which led to it being full to overflowing on numerous occasions.
I acknowledge two of my good friends Allen and Barbara Baker from Kiama, who are in the Speaker's Gallery today. It is wonderful to see them both. Mr Baker has made a huge contribution to the volunteer sector, particularly through his work with Rotary. For the benefit of those who have just joined us, I am talking about the lies that the member for Shellharbour has told, in particular, about Oak Flats car park. Her press release is entitled, "Oak Flats Station commuter car park". Bear with me as I read it onto the record—without the grammatical mistakes:
The NSW Government can now stop treating the Oak Flats Station commuter car park as a re-announcement and get on to deliver the project after significant delays, Member for Shellharbour Anna Watson said today.
"I welcome the fact that negotiations between Shellharbour City Council and Transport NSW have been finalised."
That is correct. Tick! The media release continues:
This project is important to the commuters who use the Oak Flats Station.
Tick! Pity the Labor Government did not think about that when it was building a police station without any car park, which impacted on the existing commuter car park. It goes on:
It was a project I identified needed to be enhanced when I was first elected in March 2011.
That might have been the case, but the reality is that Labor when it was in government did not care one iota for the commuters of Oak Flats when it built that police station and ignored the need for car parking. The media release continues:
And I was pleased to see, like the Flinders station—
it is not Flinders station; it is Shell Cove—
that the then Liberal opposition also committed to it when it became the new Government in March 2011.
We did commit to it and we said that we would get on with the job of delivering it. We are doing that now; we have allocated the money in the budget. The member for Shellharbour continues:
I have however been frustrated by the continual sneaky changes in the timetable for starting this project by the NSW Government.
There have been changes because Shellharbour City Council owned the land. Who is the mayor of that council? It is Labor's Marianne Saliba, the former member for Illawarra.
Mr Mark Coure: What happened to Saliba?
Mr GARETH WARD: She was rolled by the factional bosses opposite. I am delighted that the member for Toongabbie is in the Chamber, because he knows all about those factional bosses. Marianne Saliba, together with council staff, was responsible for ensuring that one side of the equation was dealt with. We allocated the money; there was no delay from the Government. I return to the press release, which states:
This project has had more re-heats than a plate of pasta.
That quote has been used more times than they sing The Red Flag at Labor left-wing faction meetings. The member for Shellharbour has used that quote many times. She went on:
I will continue to monitor this project carefully to ensure that it is started and finished according to the timetable set by the NSW Government.
24290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
We set a timetable but unfortunately it was broken by the council. The media release continues:
"It is a real pity that the NSW Government only seems to act on its promises after it is publicly embarrassed into action", Ms Watson said.
Who left us with the mess? The Labor Party left the station without necessary car parking, and we are getting on with fixing the problem. I read the press releases of the member for Shellharbour frequently. A noble gentleman by the name of Gino Mandarino writes them. He must feel like Elizabeth Taylor's seventh husband: He knows what is expected of him but he has a lot of difficulty making it interesting! I am sure he does his best in that regard. In today's Illawarra Mercury Marianne Saliba, the former State Labor member, said in an article by Alex Arnold:
Overall we are pleased with the outcome.
That is very different from what the member for Shellharbour said. Marianne Saliba continued:
I know that our council officers worked very hard to get an agreement that would benefit our community.
That is what it is about for Oak Flats: getting agreement on projects that will benefit the community. I return to the motion. I am pleased that, after a long campaign, $39 million is being spent on Shell Cove railway station. That will mean greater access for a fast-growing community. As I indicated in the motion, the Minister has issued tenders for the work. I am proud that a community comprising the old and the young, families, workers and students will be able to access that station. Despite the interesting communications about the name, I know that the member for Shellharbour, like me, is excited for the community that this is happening and that we are improving public transport.
At Gerringong the station access has been improved. I asked for those improvements, and they have been delivered. At Albion Park we have seen improvements to access, to lighting and to closed-circuit television. I note that my friend and colleague the member for Oatley is in the Chamber. He was an incredibly successful fighter for access improvements at Oatley station. In fact, he took that commitment to the election. A new timetable has now come into effect, with 125 new express services from 20 October, which will benefit my electorate and that of the member for Shellharbour.
Ms Anna Watson: There were more cuts.
Mr GARETH WARD: When was the last time the member for Shellharbour caught a train? I am sure it had steam blowing out the top of it! I have never seen her on a train, and I catch them frequently. The Government has a great story to tell about new timetables, access improvements and innovations such as quiet carriages. The member for Shellharbour could not travel in those carriages. She is sitting opposite, carrying on. I wish the Opposition benches were like quiet carriages but they are very noisy. I am delighted with this motion, and I commend the Government for the job it is doing in the transport area.
Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) [12.44 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak on this motion moved by the member for Kiama. I note that in recent months his actions as the Illawarra's free-range chicken have been tempered. It could be because his ambition to be the Minister for the Illawarra was thwarted unnecessarily by the Premier—not once but twice in as many months. I still believe the member for Kiama should be Minister for the Illawarra; it is unfair that his talents have been thwarted so. Never mind, Gareth, I am sure that good things will happen for you. The member for Kiama has been busily misleading the people about Labor's record in the Illawarra. Labor decided to build the new Flinders station, mainly because a cost-benefit analysis concluded that the upgrade to Dunmore station would be far too costly. It was more cost effective to build a new station. Labor determined that.
In 2001 the need to build Flinders station was identified. This was predicated on the growth of population in the Flinders suburbs. When the population warranted a new station the then Labor Government started to draw up the necessary plans. The then Liberal candidate for Kiama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the construction of the new Flinders station just weeks before the March 2011 polling day. On behalf of the Labor Government I had already committed to building it. In fact, the former member for Kiama and I turned the first sod, together with local identities from Flinders who had been instrumental in campaigning for the station. That gave a clear indication that, if re-elected, Labor would commence construction of the station.
Mr Gareth Ward: You weren't there. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24291
Ms ANNA WATSON: Yes, I was. I turned the first sod with the then member for Kiama.
Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: It relates to relevance. The member for Shellharbour was not at the turning of the first sod. No-one was there. The member has misled Parliament.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Kiama will resume his seat.
Ms ANNA WATSON: I have photographs and it is on the public record. For instance, way back on 9 February 2011 an ABC headline was, "Opposition matches commitment to build Flinders Station". The story said:
The State Opposition has committed to complete the $35 million Flinders Railway Station near Shellharbour, if finances permit after the March election.
The Government has started work on the station foundations with local candidate Anna Watson providing a cast iron guarantee it will be completed under Labor.
I was very happy with that commitment because it meant there was bipartisan political support for constructing the new Flinders station regardless of the election result. But despite the self-congratulations of the member for Kiama—the Illawarra's own free-range chicken—Flinders station remains 12 months behind schedule. There is no escaping that fact. Last April the member for Kiama and the Minister for Transport indicated that the planning documents would be released in order to commence the public consultation process in the middle of last year. Those documents were released only after I drew attention to the fact that they were very late and in contravention of the timetable established by the Government. It always upsets the member for Kiama when I raise these facts; he does not like it. It is a very sore point.
There have also been substantial delays in commencing the Dapto station upgrade. It is more than 12 months behind schedule, but I am pleased to say that the work has just started—once again, following public pressure from me. Similarly, the commuter car park project at Oak Flats station had more reheats than a plate of pasta—as the member for Kiama knows. Earlier this year the original timetable set out by the Government was changed on the Transport NSW website. It was done very sneakily, in the middle of the night. Nonetheless, I am pleased that the land negotiations between Shellharbour City Council and Transport NSW have concluded and that the project can finally start. I will be monitoring all these rail projects carefully. I will hold the Government to the timetable that it set itself and ensure that the projects come in on budget.
Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) [12.48 p.m.]: I thank the member for Kiama for moving this motion commending the Minister for Transport for progressing the upgrade of much-needed rail infrastructure at Oak Flats, Kiama and Moss Vale railway stations. The motion notes the importance of the new Shell Cove railway station, for which tenders were released recently. It commends the Minister for making significant improvements in public transport in the Illawarra, Sydney and across New South Wales. I will come to Oatley railway station in a moment, but first I note the $39 million upgrade to Shell Cove railway station. I thank the member for Kiama for his hard work in getting on with the job.
Ms Anna Watson: Is he taking you out to dinner tonight?
Mr Gareth Ward: Going to do you like a dinner.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! I call the member for Kiama to order for the first time.
Mr MARK COURE: I also thank the Minister for Transport for getting the work done. Two and a half years into a four-year term and the Government has already announced tenders for the Shell Cove railway station upgrade and transport interchange. This involves construction of the new station, with two side platforms—not one, but two—construction of a new small station building, housing electrical and communications services; installation of closed-circuit television surveillance at the station; construction of a station car park of around 105 spaces, including disabled parking spaces; construction of an interchange comprising two bus bays, four kiss-and-ride spaces, a taxi zone and bicycle racks; and construction of a new access road connecting the station to the existing road network from Piper Drive off Dunmore Road—I know it well. This is a major upgrade for Shell Cove. The people in the Kiama electorate and in Wollongong will be very happy with this outcome. I put on record my thanks to the member for Kiama. 24292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
What other rail infrastructure is being upgraded around the State? A number of stations are being upgraded, such as Auburn and Bankstown. The member for Bankstown is in the Chamber. Her electorate is getting a station upgrade. There will be upgrades at Canley Vale, Cardiff and Dapto—Dapto is getting a transport interchange upgrade. There will be upgrades at Fairfield, Glenbrook and Granville—the member for Granville was in the Chamber earlier today. Granville is getting a commuter car park and bus interchange. Ingleburn is also getting a station upgrade. Kiama station—it is the member for Kiama again—is getting a commuter car park. There will be upgrades at Lindfield, Marrickville, Mittagong, Moss Vale, which is mentioned in the motion, Oak Flats and—my favourite station—Oatley railway station. Those opposite did not upgrade Oatley railway station for 16 years but this Government is delivering. On 14 September last year—my birthday—the Government announced an upgrade to Oatley railway station.
Mr Nathan Rees: That's why they did it.
Mr MARK COURE: That is right—it was my birthday. Planning documents will be available early next year and construction will start early next year. It is a major upgrade to the Oatley railway station— something those opposite could not do in 16 years in government.
Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [12.52 p.m.], in reply: Another Thursday, another entertaining debate on a general business motion. I thank my friend and colleague the member for Oatley for his considered contribution to this debate. I will reply to some of the comments made by those opposite. This is difficult for Labor members to understand, but they were in government for 16 long years and did work on Shell Cove station start during that time? No, it did not. It has now begun two years into the term of this Government, because we pushed and campaigned for it. Did we see work start on the Oak Flats car park? No, we did not. Those opposite built a police station without a car park and then sought to change the plans—long after the horse had bolted. Did we see upgrades to Gerringong station? No, we did not. They only came about after this Government was elected and its members lobbied for upgrades. Did we see the upgrades to Albion Park station that the community was calling for, such as improved lighting, access and security? No, they happened only after this Government was elected. Members might see a bit of a theme developing: no action during 16 years of Labor; action and delivery by this Government.
Mr Mark Coure: Actions speak louder than words.
Mr GARETH WARD: They certainly do; I acknowledge the interjection by the member for Oatley. I am happy to work with any member in this place—Opposition or Government members—to improve transport services in the region. As someone who uses public transport frequently, even to travel to this place, I know the train line well. I acknowledge that many improvements are still to be made, and I will work to deliver them. The Government is working on the problem and improvements have been made to benefit people's lives. New quiet carriages are being rolled out for use by people who do not like to listen to the noise of chatter or phone conversations. I am not a candidate for a quiet carriage, but for those who are I think it is a good initiative. Officers of the Commuter Crime Unit were behind the scenes in offices. Now they are on trains, doing real work and getting real results in enforcing commuter safety. I commend the Minister for that initiative. Car park access at Moss Vale railway station has improved, with an additional 50 spaces. Some 40 spaces are under construction at Kiama station.
I will continue to campaign for improvements to public transport in my electorate because I know that people need it to travel to work, to medical appointments and to Sydney on a frequent basis. I would hope that, regardless of who is in government, there would be a bipartisan approach to public transport. Sadly for our region, we have not seen the results at Shell Cove station. I acknowledge that there was a lot of talk about Shell Cove or Flinders station from the last Government. For the record, the project was first mooted by the Labor Government in 2001 but there was no action by 2011. But now it is being delivered. I look forward to continuing to work with the member for Shellharbour. I do not recall her being at the sod-turning ceremony and I take issue with her misleading the House. I take the opportunity to remind the member for Bankstown—
Ms Anna Watson: We were having lunch that day.
Mr GARETH WARD: We had lunch on one occasion but Eddie Obeid was not there, and nor was Ian Macdonald. We talked of several issues about which we are passionate, and we will continue to do so. I thank members for contributing to this debate, and I encourage members to continue to debate issues about which they feel strongly. For me, public transport is certainly one of those issues. I thank the Minister for the major 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24293
investments that we are seeing in rail at Shell Cove, Oak Flats, Kiama and Moss Vale. I will continue to lobby for that sort of funding because it makes a real difference to the lives of the people whom I represent in this place.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
KIAMA JUNIOR RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB
Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [12.56 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) Notes that the Kiama Junior Rugby League Football Club has received $40,000 from Community Building Partnership to upgrade its facilities for club members.
(2) Thanks the Premier for his support of the Kiama Junior Rugby League Club.
(3) Commends and thanks the Minister for Sport and Recreation for being present for this important announcement.
I apologise to my guests in the Speaker's Gallery. Today there is an opportunity for members to move motions and have them debated in the House. I placed a number of motions on the Business Paper some time ago and now several of them are in a row. I was pleased to announce these funds, which came from the Community Building Partnership program. I know they will make a huge difference to the Kiama Junior Rugby League Football Club. This $40,000 in funding will pay for the reconstruction of the canteen and amenities block at the club, which will give it a huge boost. The club is located at the Kiama Showground, which is where the Kiama Juniors train and play. I acknowledge President Greg Norris, Secretary Leah Roberts and Treasurer Emma Timbs for their hard work and dedication to continue this local, strong football club. Junior rugby league is popular in our region and deserves our support as it promotes an active and healthy lifestyle and encourages young people to keep fit. I will continue to fight to improve amenities at local sporting clubs across our region.
I spoke recently with the Minister for Sport and Recreation about the need to upgrade facilities and spend money at Gerringong. Not too many members in this place, particularly those of us who are keen supporters and followers of rugby league, would not know the name Mick Cronin. I had the great privilege recently of joining Daryl Hobbs, the President of the Gerringong Rugby League Football Club, to celebrate Gerringong's fantastic win in the Group 7s. I commend Mick Cronin for his stewardship as coach and the team, who did a sensational job in bringing the trophy home to Gerringong. My father played for the third grade side in 1973. A book has been written about that experience, and I look forward to reading about it in detail. Rugby league is an important part of our local community, starting at junior level. Dedicated people spend hours training younger people in the sport. This encourages younger people to do something fit and active. Sadly, one issue creeping into today's society is childhood obesity. I will do anything I can to encourage sport, recreation, fitness and activity in our local community.
This $40,000 grant is probably one of the larger grants I have been able to allocate from the Community Building Partnership program. I acknowledge the former Government for establishing this great program and commend the Treasurer for continuing with it. This program gives local members of Parliament the opportunity to identify and support projects for which grants have been applied as part of the process through the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It is the only program through which members can support their local communities directly. All 93 members of Parliament—from the Premier, to the Speaker, to me and to others— frequently have difficulty securing grants. Depending on the member and the electorate, this program provides access to $200,000 or $300,000 in contributions to groups such as the Kiama Junior Rugby League Club. I look forward to demonstrating to the Minister for Sport and Recreation the need to expand the amenities and facilities of Gerringong Rugby League Football Club not just to store all the trophies it continues to win, but to continue supporting it. The secretary of Kiama Junior Rugby League Football Club, Leah Roberts, said she was elated about the $40,000 funding. She said:
We are elated because the new building will have new change rooms and a new storeroom. It will also assist the community with the new toilets at Chittick Oval. We have planned out this project over the last two years and we are very grateful to Gareth and Minister Graham Annesley—
as he was at the time—
for funding which will benefit our club immensely.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 24294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Report: Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Audit Office of New South Wales
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [1.00 p.m.]: The genesis of the Public Accounts Committee report No. 11/55 dated September 2013 entitled "Efficiency and effectiveness of the Audit Office of New South Wales" and its related inquiry occurred when the committee considered its obligations under section 48A of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. The Act requires the committee to appoint an independent review to examine the audit practices and standards of the Auditor-General every four years. While the committee appointed a reviewer, it also pursued an opportunity to undertake a concurrent inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of the Audit Office of NSW. This inquiry provided an opportunity for the committee to examine qualitative aspects of the Audit Office's performance and explore issues regarding its scope of authority. The inquiry allowed other stakeholders to participate and provide feedback about the performance of the Audit Office and their experiences working with it.
Aside from examining the performance of the Audit Office regarding its audit services and assessing its communication, staffing and resources, the committee also investigated the scope of the office's powers. In this respect, the committee's investigation was guided by the findings of a number of previous reports, such as the position paper of the Independent Commission Against Corruption entitled "Funding NGO Delivery of Human Services in NSW" and the "Future Directions" paper of the Independent Local Government Review Panel that proposed an expanded role for the Auditor-General. Essentially, the inquiry the subject of this report confirmed the committee's long-held opinion that the Audit Office is doing a very good job and provides value for money to New South Wales in delivering financial and performance auditing services. As with any organisation, aspects of the work of the Audit Office can continue to improve, but the committee believes that the Auditor-General, before recently concluding his term of office, created an Audit Office to ensure a continued effective culture. I am sure the new Auditor-General will continue that same approach.
The major recommendations of this report support an expanded role for the Auditor-General, allowing him greater freedom to conduct audits and shine a light on some areas of government spending previously outside his remit. In particular, the committee seeks additional follow-the-dollar powers for the Auditor-General to scrutinise the performance of private contractors and other non-government organisations that perform functions on behalf of the State. The report recommends also that the Auditor-General be afforded similar powers over local governments, and seeks the inclusion of compliance audits in the Auditor-General's mandate under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. Other recommendations include requiring the Audit Office to break down its audit fees for government agencies and to outsource at least 30 per cent of the financial audits of universities.
Returning to the follow-the-dollar powers, at a time when a growing number of services are provided by third parties on behalf of the Government, it is imperative that the Auditor-General is able to confirm that those parties deliver services effectively and efficiently. Without such oversight, the committee considers that New South Wales faces an increased and unacceptable risk, which is not adequately addressed by existing policies and controls. The committee considers the passing of these follow-the-dollar powers to be crucial, and looks forward to the Government's response as, indeed, other Australian governments have responded. On behalf of the committee, I thank all the stakeholders who participated in the inquiry. I particularly extend special thanks to the former Auditor-General, Mr Peter Achterstraat, whose appointment concluded last month—we successfully hosted a function to thank and farewell him, which he appreciated.
Mr Achterstraat has been an extremely effective Auditor-General for our State. He helped to forge an excellent working relationship with the Public Accounts Committee that has significantly assisted the positive impact of that committee and the Audit Office. Finally, I thank again the Public Accounts Committee secretariat, particularly Mr Shane Armstrong, who was seconded from the equivalent national body, and Mr John Miller for their support and assistance throughout the inquiry process and in preparing this report. I thank my fellow committee members who, as always, play a constructive and positive role in producing these reports.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24295
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report: Legislation Review Committee Digest No. 45/55
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [1.08 p.m.]: The latest report of the Legislation Review Committee, the forty-fifth digest, was tabled on 15 October 2013. It is amazing; The committee has tabled 45 digests in this Fifty-fifth Parliament.
Ms Robyn Parker: It is a Government that is delivering reform.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: It is a Government that is delivering. The forty-fifth digest considered six quality bills introduced to the Parliament in the sitting week commencing 17 September 2013. I almost had to get somebody to help me carry that digest as it was so big and heavy. Of those six bills, the committee made no comment on three: the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013, the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Non-parole Periods) Bill 2013 and the Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Child Window Safety Devices) Bill 2013.
I turn to the bills on which the committee provided comment; first, the Child Protection Legislation Amendment (Offenders Registration and Prohibition Orders) Bill 2013. The bill seeks to strengthen the framework for monitoring and managing individuals who have committed sexual or other serious offences against children and who pose a risk to children even after they have completed their sentence. I will refer to such individuals as registrable persons. The bill will allow police officers to enter and inspect the residential premises of a registrable person, without prior notice or warrant, to verify information reported by the registrable person, for example, details of computer usage. While privacy rights must be balanced against the public interest in securing the safety of children, the committee is concerned about the effect of the bill on the privacy rights of non-registrable persons cohabiting with registrable persons. Therefore, the committee has referred this matter to Parliament for further consideration.
The committee is also concerned that the bill seeks to permit a contact prohibition order to be made that prevents registrable persons from contacting co-offenders or victims if the Commissioner of Police and the person who is to be the subject of the order consent to it being made. Currently, a contact prohibition order can only be made if the judge of the Local Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds. The committee noted the effect of this on judicial review rights and has referred the matter to Parliament for further consideration. The committee has raised a number of other points relating to the bill, including its effect on the employment rights of registrable persons. However, given the greater weight of the child protection objectives of the bill, the committee has made no further comment on these matters.
The committee noted that the Firearms and Criminal Groups Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 requires an accused person to disprove a presumption that he or she is guilty of the newly created criminal offence of residing on the same premises on which a firearm is held whilst subject to a firearms prohibition order. The committee found that this requirement may violate a person's right to the presumption of innocence and has referred the matter to Parliament for further consideration. The committee also noted that schedule 2 to the bill, which amends the Restricted Premises Act 1943, introduces significant penalties for owners of restricted premises who allow reputed criminals to attend those premises. There is no need to prove that the reputed criminals committed any offence whilst at the restricted premises, or indeed that they have ever committed any offence other than associating with convicted criminals. The committee has referred the matter of whether the bill unduly impacts on freedom of association to Parliament for further consideration.
The committee noted that the bill will allow police, without warrant, to detain and search a person subject to a firearms prohibition order, and to search his or her vehicle or premises to determine whether the person has contravened a firearms prohibition order. There is no requirement for police to have a reasonable suspicion that a contravention has occurred before exercising these powers. The committee has concerns that these provisions may impact on the right of a person to be free from unreasonable searches and has referred the issue to Parliament for further consideration. The committee is concerned that the bill excludes the rights of certain persons to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decision by the Commissioner of Police to make a firearms prohibition order against them. While these decisions are required to be internally reviewed by police, there is no longer any independent oversight of them. The committee has referred this matter to Parliament for further consideration. 24296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
The committee has made a number of other comments about the bill, including increased penalties and the right to freedom of movement. However, given the greater weight of the gun safety objectives of the bill, the committee has made no further comment on these additional points. As a result of the comments made by the committee in relation to the Child Protection Legislation Amendment (Offenders Registration and Prohibition Orders) Bill 2013 and to the Firearms and Criminal Groups Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 it can be noted that this legislation is extremely tough on targeted groups. It is another example of this Government looking after the interests of the wider public, rather than the rights of those individuals.
The final bill on which the committee commented was the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Bill 2013. The bill seeks to improve governance of residential communities such as caravan parks. The committee noted that the bill will require the operator of a residential community to supply certain information about the community to the Commissioner for Fair Trading. The bill provides that an operator is not excused from the requirement where the supplying of information may incriminate the operator. The committee made a number of comments about the bill. I commend committee participants and the staff for the preparation of the report.
Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [1.14 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I speak in debate on Legislation Review Digest No. 45/55. I acknowledge the chair and my fellow committee members and commend the conscientious committee staff who compiled the digest for their usual high standard. I note that the chairman said earlier that the digest was too heavy for him to carry but, as always, it took only a staggering four minutes for the committee to review that heavy digest.
The first bill that the committee reviewed was the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013. I note that the committee made no comment with respect to that bill. The committee also reviewed the Child Protection Legislation Amendment (Offenders Registration and Prohibition Orders) Bill 2013. The New South Wales Opposition has announced its support for this bill, which aims to implement findings of a statutory review of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act and to introduce measures to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act. The Committee considered a number of issues relating to the bill, including the increase in penalty for the offence of contravening a child protection prohibition order. The committee stated:
The Committee notes that schedule 1 [2] of the bill significantly increases the maximum penalty for contravening a child protection prohibition order. However, the amendment is intended to deter people who have been convicted of serious offences against children from engaging in activity that may be a precursor to further offences. The Committee also notes that the amendment aligns the maximum penalty for the subject offence with the maximum penalty for similar offences under sections 17 and 18 of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.
The committee also considered the issue of the right to privacy in that the bill will allow police officers to enter and inspect the residential premises of a registrable person. The committee stated:
While such rights must be balanced against the public interest in securing the safety of children, the Committee is concerned about the effect this amendment may have on the privacy rights of non-registrable persons who may be cohabiting with registrable persons. The Committee refers the matter to Parliament for consideration.
Further, the committee considered the retrospectivity component of the bill in that police entering and inspecting the residential premises of a registrable person are able to do so if that person's report was made before the commencement of this bill. The committee also reviewed the Firearms and Criminal Groups Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I note that the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition introduced the Firearms Amendment (Prohibition Orders) Bill 2013 in August in response to the number of shootings that have occurred across New South Wales since the O'Farrell Government came into office. After the Opposition introduced its bill the Government chose to introduce this bill. The committee considered a number of issues, in particular, freedom of association and the reverse onus of proof, and raised issues concerning those areas.
The committee also reviewed the Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Child Window Safety Devices) Bill 2013. I note that later today an amendment will be introduced to reduce the five-year implementation period for the installation of window safety devices to two years. The New South Wales Opposition wants to ensure that children are protected; it does not want to wait five years for window safety devices to be installed. I commend staff for the preparation of the digest and commend the report to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
[Acting-Speaker (Mr John Barilaro) left the chair at 1.18 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.] 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24297
LOUD SHIRT DAY
The SPEAKER: For the information of the people sitting in the gallery, Friday 18 October is Loud Shirt Day. Loud Shirt Day is an annual fundraising and awareness campaign for deaf children. To support this initiative members have been permitted and encouraged to wear loud ties, scarves or shirts during question time today. I congratulate the member for Tweed on wearing the loudest tie and the member for Canterbury on wearing the loudest shirt.
RETIREMENT OF KEITH FERGUSON
The SPEAKER: Today we mark the retirement of a long-serving officer of the Legislative Assembly: Mr Keith Ferguson. Keith is seated in the public gallery with his wife. Earlier today I hosted a farewell morning tea for Keith in the Speaker's Garden and I am sure many members took the opportunity to say farewell personally. Keith has been with the Legislative Assembly for 14 years. Whilst he began his career with committees, Keith will be best known to most members and their staff through his many annual visits to the 95 electorate offices around the State. That is an enormous task. It would not have been an easy job because he had to deal with all of the issues pertaining to electorate office staff.
On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I thank Keith for his consummate professionalism and the wonderful collegiality he brought to the role. I also thank him for the many kilometres he travelled around New South Wales, I am told, in successive Legislative Assembly Ford Falcon station wagons—which would have been a joyous experience. I wish Keith and his wife many happy years ahead in his retirement.
REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I advise members that today I will answer questions in the absence of the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research.
BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING
Ministerial Statement
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [2.20 p.m.]: As the House sits we are in the midst again of a fire crisis in parts of New South Wales. Conditions are rapidly deteriorating, with strong, hot and dry winds hampering firefighting efforts. Across the State there are currently 78 bushfires and grassfires underway, 31 of which are uncontained. More than 590 firefighters have been deployed, including 215 appliances. Five fires are at emergency warning status: the State Mine fire at Lithgow; Hank Street, Heatherbrae near Port Stephens; Hall Road, Balmoral in Wingecarribee; Linksview Road, Springwood; and Quinns Lane, Nowra. Four other fires are at watch and act status: Mount Tangory at Singleton; Blackjack Mountain at Muswellbrook; Mount York Road at Mount Victoria; and Maria River Road, Crescent Head, near Kempsey. Two evacuation centres have been set up at the State Mine fire near Lithgow at the Mount Tomah Botanic Gardens and Lithgow Workers Club. The fire has crossed the Bells Line of Road and the road is now closed. Emergency alerts have been issued to residents and others in the area. Significant spot fire activity is occurring and that is of concern to State fire authorities.
The Zig Zag Public School has also been closed. The Hanks Street fire at Heatherbrae, Port Stephens has seen emergency alerts issued. The fire is threatening properties to the west of Williamtown airport. Anyone who has seen photos taken from Heatherbrae and Fullerton Cove will have seen the unbelievable size of that fire. Williamtown airport has been closed due to the proximity of the fire and the impact of the smoke on the airport. The fire at Hall Road at Balmoral has resulted in fire emergency alerts being issued for Yanderra residents to evacuate. Properties are under threat and the Yanderra Public School has been evacuated. The Hume Highway is closed north of Yanderra. Properties at Linksview Road at Springwood are under threat and emergency alerts have been issued. The Quinns Lane fire at Nowra is threatening properties and emergency alerts have been issued. The advice for that area is that it is now too late for residents to leave.
The Minister for Police and Emergency Services, given his statutory obligations, has relocated to the Rural Fire Service headquarters at the request of the Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. He will miss the sittings of the Legislative Council this afternoon, where the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council will lead for us. I know that at least one member of this place, the member for Port Stephens, will be leaving shortly to return to his electorate. I encourage other members whose electorates are 24298 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
affected to feel free to leave the parliamentary sittings this afternoon—if they want to go then they should. I know that the Hume Highway is closed. I know that the western rail line is closed. It may be that the Southern Highlands rail line also ends up closing. There is not much we can do except to wish those extraordinary volunteers and paid firefighters out there every success and good luck.
I remind the community that we are in a period of fire emergency and high fire danger. I remind people to be careful with any naked flame and with cigarette butts. If they see any suspicious activity they should report it to police. There have been suggestions made already that some of these fires may well be the result of arson. Hopefully that is not true and it comes down to today's weather conditions, which are not only warm but also very windy. We are not expecting a southerly change to come into Sydney until 5.00 p.m., so until then this city cannot rest easy. There are parts of our State where residents are in crisis and battling uncertainty amid the outbreak of these fires. Our hearts go out to them and our thoughts are with them.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
Government Business Notices of Motions (Business with Precedence) given.
QUESTION TIME
[Question time commenced at 2.55 p.m.]
OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the head of the bikie taskforce in Queensland says that there has been an exodus of gang members to New South Wales since Queensland introduced tough new anti-gang laws, why are we still waiting for the Premier to use the laws passed by this Parliament and finally outlaw bikie gangs in our State?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Despite the statements coming from Queensland, that is not the advice the police in New South Wales provided to me today. As I have said in this place before, I will leave it up to the police to determine the day-to-day activities necessary to be successful in their battle with bikies and other organised crime gangs across this State. I remind the House that less than a month ago the Commissioner of Police reorganised efforts to deal with the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs in Sydney. Deputy Commissioner Kaldas now heads up Operation Talon. Operation Talon has been very effective to date. I should add that on Tuesday, when the Queensland legislation was introduced and finally detailed, I instructed the NSW Police Force and the Department of Attorney General and Justice to provide me with advice as to whether there were any provisions in that legislation—in addition to the legislation Queensland is copying from New South Wales—that we should put into law to make our own anti-gang laws even more effective. I am awaiting that advice.
PARTIAL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: My question is directed to the Premier. How will the Government reform the partial defence of provocation?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: This is a question of importance and in which there is keen interest across the community. The use of the partial defence of provocation has attracted widespread public debate in recent years. It has been brought into focus by cases where men who killed their wives upon discovering their partner had been unfaithful or wished to end the relationship subsequently escaped a conviction of murder by using a defence of provocation. Concerns have been raised about the inappropriate use of the partial defence of provocation for homicides committed in response to a non-violent sexual advance, and in some cases a homosexual advance.
A parliamentary committee was established to examine the issue of provocation in June 2012, and it reported in April 2013. The select committee comprised members from all parties—the Liberal Party, The Nationals, the Labor Party and The Greens—and it was chaired by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile from the Christian Democratic Party. The committee made 11 recommendations for legislative and policy changes. As I informed the House in May, the Government supported the committee's policy position and the intent behind 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24299
its recommendations. The Government has worked on a draft exposure bill to achieve this policy intent and today I release the draft exposure bill for public comment. The draft exposure bill significantly restricts the law of provocation, addressing community concerns that the partial defence of provocation has been used inappropriately in certain cases in recent times. It proposes that for a person who kills another to successfully argue that that person provoked them, thereby entitling the accused to a partial defence, they will now have to show "extreme provocation", which amounts to a serious indictable offence.
Under this bill, if a person kills his partner the fact that his partner has been unfaithful or wishes to leave the relationship cannot in future amount to extreme provocation. These are not circumstances that should result in a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. The same is true when a person kills someone who makes a non-violent sexual advance towards them. It is not consistent with community values for a non-violent sexual advance to reduce a murder charge to a conviction for manslaughter. The partial defence of provocation will still be available in certain cases where people who have been abused over a long period lose control and kill their abuser. Long-term abuse of this sort may amount to extreme provocation and to a serious indictable offence. That issue was of particular concern to the committee, just as it is to the community at large. Victims of long-term physical abuse—typically a wife at the hands of an abusive partner—should retain protections under any legislative changes we make.
The Government has given careful consideration to the committee's recommendations, and the exposure draft bill aims to achieve the committee's policy intent. Where the bill adopts different wording to the committee's recommendations, this has been done to ensure the exposure draft works as effectively as possible to achieve the committee's broader policy intent. The draft exposure bill and an accompanying discussion paper that explains the intent and application of the bill are now available for public comment on the Department of Attorney General and Justice website. I encourage all stakeholders to use this opportunity to provide feedback ahead of consideration by Cabinet of a final bill and its introduction to Parliament.
Many members have raised this issue either in private representations or in this Chamber in recent times. I urge them to ensure that the individuals and groups who have spoken to them about this issue see the draft bill and that they are happy with it. Please let us know if they have any concerns. The draft exposure bill will be on public exhibition for four weeks, after which it is my intention to introduce a bill to the House as soon as is practicable.
OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS
Mr GUY ZANGARI: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Given Queensland police say that the new gang laws make it almost impossible for criminal bikie gangs to exist in Queensland, why is the Attorney General still allowing them to operate legally and grow in New South Wales?
The SPEAKER: Order! The question contains argument, but I will allow it. I remind members of my previous rulings in this regard.
Mr GREG SMITH: As I understand it, the three bills that were introduced and passed the other day by the Queensland Government included one that picked up our Tattoo Parlours Bill 2012. It has copied us there and it has learnt from us in other ways. The Queensland Government is still looking at our changes to consorting laws. Those laws have been the strongest tool but, sadly, they are under challenge in the Court of Appeal on constitutional grounds. Sadly, I expect that any laws that are introduced will not become operable until they have been looked at by the High Court and passed muster. That might be two or three years away.
CROWN LANDS TENURE
Mr ANDREW FRASER: My question is addressed to the Deputy Premier. How is the Government providing certainty to thousands of businesses and community groups operating on Crown land?
Mr ANDREW STONER: I thank the member for Coffs Harbour for his question. There are approximately 35,000 Crown reserves in New South Wales, many of which accommodate important community groups as well as local businesses. Due to a recent court decision—
Ms Linda Burney: The Premier did this yesterday.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Canterbury does not want to hear this. If she is not concerned about community groups whose Crown land tenures are jeopardised as a result of this court decision she does not have to listen. 24300 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Madam Speaker, I am sure you are aware and concerned that a recent court decision has raised uncertainty about the legality of the tenures held by around 7,000 community groups and businesses, including many in the backyard of the member for Coffs Harbour, such as the Banana Coast Life Education Centre and the port facility at Coffs jetty. The Government wants to provide certainty to these groups. It has done so in the most efficient and practical way possible through a minor amendment to the Crown Lands Act that will allow facilities such as Country Women's Association halls, scout halls, surf life saving clubs and local kiosks to continue to operate. Yet the Government's common-sense solution to this issue has been subject to wildly inaccurate claims and nonsensical opposition from Labor and The Greens. They must have read the wrong piece of legislation because the bill I introduced to this House does not allow—
[Interruption]
Listen and you might learn something. The piece of legislation that this Government introduced does not allow for bribes either. I would report a bribe. The Leader of the Opposition is showing the same lack of judgement in opposing the bill.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. The Deputy Premier has the call. The Premier will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The Leader of the Opposition has shown appalling judgement in opposing this bill because it does not allow for new or changed uses of Crown land, it does not provide the Minister with any new powers and it certainly does not provide for any new developments on Crown land. The amendment provides confirmation of existing lease arrangements and therefore provides certainty for the State's surf life saving clubs, recreational sporting clubs, and other community and commercial facilities operating on Crown land. The opposition to this amendment by the Labor Party and The Greens means that these valued community operations will be considered legally invalid and could face closure.
With the beach and bushfire season approaching, it is imperative that these vital community services are allowed to continue to operate. Unlike those opposite, we do not want to see the bushfire training site at Glenorie shut down. We do not want to see the Country Women's Association at Grafton, the Kiama Tourist Information Centre, the Entrance Boathouse or the marine rescue facility at Ulladulla shut down. We do not want to see the Cobar, Grenfell, Cessnock, North Rivers branch and Coffs Harbour rifle clubs or the Moss Vale Small Bore Rifle and Clay Target Club shut down.
The Labor Party and The Greens are using these local community facilities and businesses as political pawns. Earlier today the Premier visited the Warringah Surf Rescue building at Griffith Park, which is an example of a great community facility under threat due to the Labor Party and The Greens. Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches uses the building for its radio room. It is responsible for the radio operations for many surf life saving clubs across the New South Wales coast and it coordinated more than 900 rescues in 2012-13. [Extension of time granted.]
While providing the community with unquestionable value, the radio room function is covered under a secondary tenure because, according to the court decision, the reserve purpose of "public recreation" does not allow for a radio control room. If the Labor Party and The Greens get their way this facility will not be able to legally operate on that site. The Government's amendment would secure the continued operation of the Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches radio room. The Labor Party and The Greens are running an irresponsible scare campaign driven as usual by politics, not policy. One would have thought they would have learnt their lesson from the March 2011 State election, not to mention the Federal election in September this year.
They put politics before policy, but they have not learnt. The potential results of their actions are quite frightening. Thousands of valuable local businesses and community facilities like the Northern Beaches Surf Life Saving radio room are at risk. To make matters worse, Labor contributed to the mess by granting 3,500 secondary tenures on Crown lands during its 16 long years in office. Now the Liberals and Nationals are attempting to fix Labor's mess. I urge Labor and The Greens to put politics aside, to pursue good policy and to allow common sense to prevail by supporting the Government's bill. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24301
OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS
Mr NATHAN REES: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services. Queensland Police have raised concerns that criminal bikie gangs are basing themselves in border towns on the New South Wales North Coast because of tough anti-gang laws in Queensland. What action has he taken to engage the Cross-Border Commissioner to tackle interstate criminal gang activity?
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The member for Wollongong will come to order. The member for Coffs Harbour will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The Premier responded to an earlier question relating to these issues.
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members who continue to interject will be removed from the Chamber.
Mr ANDREW STONER: This Government will be guided by the police and by other legal authorities, including the Attorney General's Department and the courts in determining the appropriate response to bikie gangs. To this point New South Wales has led the debate and has introduced legislation to deal with bike gangs in this State despite the usual opposition from those opposite. For the member to bowl up this question now simply highlights Labor's hypocrisy. Labor stood aside while the Federal Labor Government declined to show any national leadership. The Queensland legislation has not yet been proclaimed but Opposition members are already engaging in political stunts.
SOUTH WEST RAIL LINK
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What progress is the Government making in the construction of the South West Rail Link?
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I thank the member for Camden for his question, and acknowledge all the great projects that he has won for his community. He has been working so hard that he has now lost his voice.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Today I am pleased to update the House and to give members news they would not have heard in the 16 years in which the former Labor Government was in office. This news will restore the public's faith. The Government that is now in office is focused on delivering public transport projects. I am pleased to inform the House that the South West Rail Link is currently one year ahead of schedule and more than $100 million under budget. Members will remember that when the former Labor Government was in office it was not able to say the same thing.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kiama will come to order. The member for Keira will come to order.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: The contribution of the former Labor Government was to announce 12 different rail lines but none of those rail lines were built. The only thing it managed to build in 16 years in office was half a project at double the cost.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence. Government members will come to order.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: We cannot forget Labor's legacy—the half a billion dollar price tag on the failed CBD Rozelle metro and the millions it spent on glossy brochures and plans that never came to fruition.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Macquarie Fields to order for the first time.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Earlier I heard some interjections about Labor's contribution to the South West Rail Link. Let us look at its contribution. 24302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the first time.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: It was announced in December 2004 at a cost of $688 million and it was supposed to be completed by 2012. It then re-announced it four years later in March 2008. Former Premier Morris Iemma reannounced it at a cost of $1.36 billion. In November 2008, when the member for Toongabbie as Premier brought down his mini-budget, Labor axed it. In November 2009 Labor re-announced it at a cost of $1.3 billion, but the completion date had blown out by four years. In February 2010 it was re-announced by former Premier Keneally. After seven or eight years of promises nothing happened under Labor; not a single centimetre of track was laid. In contrast this Government is committed to delivering the South West Rail Link. One of our first acts when coming into office was to put in place a dedicated project team to get the job done.
Today's news—the result of that focused effort—follows the early opening of Glenfield station, which many members of this House may have witnessed, and the transport interchange in September 2012 which was four months ahead of schedule. I am pleased to say that this Government laid the first metre of track in mid-2011. The project team has now installed the last of 53,000 thousand sleepers and laid the last of 31 kilometres of track. It has also completed 10 of the project's 14 bridges, which is a huge feat. This great work demonstrates the job that this Government is doing in getting on with delivering key infrastructure where it is needed. Not only will we be running services earlier than anticipated but also we will be saving taxpayers $100 million. I know that the members representing the electorates of Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly, who are very appreciative, have been strong advocates in relation to this project. I thank them and their communities for their strong support but I also acknowledge—
Ms Carmel Tebbutt: What about the member for Macquarie Fields?
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I was about to refer to the member for Macquarie Fields. I am sure that he would love to congratulate the Government on the work that it is doing. However, he cannot do so as he is too embarrassed. I am sure that deep down he appreciates the important work that this Government is doing for his community. Once the 11-plus kilometres of the South West Rail Link is complete two new stations at Leppington and Edmondson Park will provide modern facilities for transport customers across the region. It is great to see the progress that is being made along the route. If any member is in doubt he or she should have a look at the outstanding progress that is being made. [Extension of time granted.]
I again thank the member for Camden for his ongoing interest in this important issue. I know that he and his colleagues in the Macarthur region appreciate that this important piece of public transport infrastructure will service the expected population growth of approximately 300,000 people over the next few decades. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the hard-working people who have been associated with this project. Without their focus and discipline we would not have achieved what has been achieved. I acknowledge all those in the New South Wales transport cluster and our partners in the private sector who are working hard day in and day out to deliver this project.
I take this opportunity to thank all those members who have been involved in community consultation for their contributions during the course of this project. I am looking forward to the next phase, the next milestone, and to updating this House. The achievements of this Government in relation to this public transport infrastructure project stand in stark contrast to the achievements of the previous Labor Government. This Government has reduced the cost of this project by at least $100 million and the project is at least one year ahead of schedule. Compare that with the mess that was left to us by Labor. I am pleased to update the House on this project and I look forward to updating the House on other projects that this Government is getting on with.
TAFE FEES
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. How can he claim to support a strong role for TAFE when his failure to publish the skills list is causing chaos to TAFE enrolments as institutes are unable to advise students of the course fees for next year?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: This side of the House engages in a really important process—it is called consultation. We do not go off half-baked like those opposite. We have just been hearing about the South West Rail Link and the mess Labor left behind because they did not do their homework. They spent all that money and did not build a centimetre of rail line. That is why the people of New South Wales sent them a strong message 2½ years ago. Substantial reforms are underway to the provision of vocational education and training in New South Wales. Changes to TAFE are necessary if we are going to improve vocational education and 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24303
training to ensure that the students whom we are elected to serve have the best opportunity to access high-quality training in areas that will provide them with employment. We have made no secret of the changes proposed.
Part of those changes is developing a skills list. That is not an easy undertaking, as there are 1,651 different qualifications across vocational education and training [VET] providers in New South Wales. It is a matter of methodically going through each one and looking at their value in terms of providing employment opportunities to course students. Last year the Government announced that most Fine Arts courses would no longer be subsidised. That is not in any way devaluing Fine Arts; it is a matter of the Government prioritising the use of taxpayers' money. We make no secret of that. The department has been methodically going through the list of all the qualifications available in New South Wales and looking at those that should receive a government subsidy and those that will be contestable. TAFE will be in a strong position to win funds in that contestable market. But the Government is also giving non-government providers the opportunity to contest for those funds and provide training. Where a non-government provider can offer a better service to students— whether in regional or metropolitan areas—why would we not allow that? That is to the benefit of the students we are elected to serve.
In a lengthy process, the department has consulted with 11 different industry representative groups. It has looked at the qualifications required by the mining industry, the retail industry, tourism and hospitality— critical areas of industry. The department has looked at the courses where industries need trained people, so that we can focus the taxpayers' dollars into areas of workforce need. We have not released the skills list yet because we are still working on it. Fees went up last year; they will go up this year. They went up every year when the previous Government was in office. There is no secret about that. Fees have gone up every year, including the 16 years when those opposite were in government. The fees for next year will be released but, as I have said, the Smart and Skilled program does not start on 1 January next year.
Ms Carmel Tebbutt: The students have to enrol.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Marrickville will cease interjecting.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The TAFE fees for next year will be published in good time. It will not be long, but this is part of the substantial reforms that the Government is undertaking in vocational education and training, early childhood and schools—the kind of reforms that the previous Government was always too gutless to undertake. The reforms are in the process of being undertaken by this Government, which is well led by the Premier and Deputy Premier. We are making reforms in the best interests of New South Wales. The skills list will be released in the not too distant future. The Skills Board Bill 2013 passed through the House yesterday. The NSW Skills Board will have a critical role to play in making sure that the skills list includes all the qualifications that employers and, most importantly, students will need.
TOURISM AND MAJOR EVENTS
Mr MATT KEAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts. How is New South Wales benefiting from major events?
Mr GEORGE SOURIS: I am delighted to have received this question from the member for Hornsby and I appreciate his interest and support for tourism and major events in this State. Sydney and New South Wales certainly put on what can best be summed up as a bumper weekend of events which brought about 1.4 million people to the harbour city—one of the busiest times in Sydney since the 2000 Olympics. The Government supported and promoted a number of high-profile events, including the spectacular International Fleet Review on Sydney Harbour. I place on the record my congratulations and thanks to the Ministers for the portfolios of Transport, Roads, Health and Police, who invested considerable resources and are rightfully entitled to enjoy the success of the weekend that was brought about through their efforts.
Other major events were: the National Rugby League [NRL] grand final; the Parramasala Festival in Western Sydney; the Spring Racing Carnival, featuring the Epsom Handicap at Royal Randwick; a performance by Bollywood star Sharukh Khan; three concerts by super group One Direction; the EB Games convention; and the Manly Jazz Festival. In regional New South Wales the two-day Deniliquin Ute Muster attracted record crowds, while the south enjoyed the district's best food and wine at the Murrumbateman Moving Feast. As a result, from the visitor impact alone, the New South Wales economy received an estimated $50 million boost from this bumper weekend of events and a much greater overall economic impact. 24304 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
With so many people attending these events, hotels experienced record occupancy levels, greater in many cases than for New Year's Eve. According to Tourism Accommodation Australia, occupancies in the central business district reached 98.7 per cent on the Saturday night—higher than during New Year's Eve—with revenue averaging 39 per cent higher in Sydney across Friday and Saturday nights. Many city hotels, including Park Hyatt, Rendezvous, Marque, Mantra, 2 Bond Street and Mantra on Kent, reached 100 per cent occupancy on Saturday and Sunday. Accor's Pullman, Sebel, Novotel, Mercure, Ibis and MGallery hotels were at record occupancy levels of 99 per cent, while the Aspire Hotel reported its busiest ever Saturday night—again, bigger than New Year's Eve.
I also take the opportunity to thank the people of Sydney. Sydney has recently been voted the safest and friendliest city in the world for visitors—something visitors this October long weekend would have no doubt experienced. As a key initiative to attract overnight visitors and their important contribution to the economy, the O'Farrell-Stoner Government has secured 184 events since March 2011, estimated to deliver $1.2 billion in visitor spend. With summer fast approaching, our events line-up in Sydney and regional New South Wales is set to deliver a great return. Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending first day rehearsals for the return Sydney and Australian premiere of the worldwide blockbuster The Lion King. Opening for an eight-month run in December, this premiere production is expected to attract 50,000 interstate and international visitors and, according to the producers, Disney, overall it will inject $100 million into the New South Wales economy.
A range of high-profile events have been supported by the Government, including the Sydney International Art Series featuring artworks by Yoko Ono at the Museum of Contemporary Art Australia and the opening series of the Major League Baseball, showcasing the LA Dodgers and Arizona Diamondbacks. Australia's newest Indigenous festival, Corroboree Sydney, is part of the line-up. Other events are the ARIA [Australian Record Industry Association] Awards and the third Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts [AACTA] Awards. Sporting events include the V8 Supercars and the Sydney 500; the Sydney Ashes cricket test match; Top Gear Festival Sydney; the BMW Sydney Carnival; and the Inter Dominion Championship Grand Final.
Culture and entertainment experiences feature the Handa Opera on Sydney Harbour's Madam Butterfly; the Tyrannosaurus exhibition at the Australian Museum; the Sydney Festival and Biennale of Sydney; and the wonderful Sydney and Chinese New Year's Eve celebrations. There are also numerous events across regional New South Wales: the adrenalin action sports event, Newton's Nation, in Newcastle and the Hunter Region; the 33rd Annual Merimbula Classic and Kiama Rugby Sevens on the South Coast; the Australian Beach Soccer Cup in Wollongong; the Jindabyne Snowy Mountains Muster; the annual Parkes Elvis Festival; the Tamworth Country Music Festival; the Blue Mountains Music Festival; CMC Rocks the Hunter 2014; the Bathurst 12 Hour event; and the Coffs Harbour World Car rally. Our event calendar has something for everyone. [Extension of time granted.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.
Mr GEORGE SOURIS: The momentum continues as we begin actively marketing and promoting New South Wales to drive event attendance and economic activity heading into the summer. The ball dropped by Labor after the Olympics we won for them has been picked up again by the O'Farrell-Stoner Government.
SIBLING SCHOOL ENROLMENT
Mr JAMIE PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Considering large school boundary changes can leave siblings of existing students out of area, what steps will the Government take to ensure siblings are not split due to revised boundaries?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I thank the member for his question. The member has raised this issue previously. The Department of Education and Communities always tries hard, in a complex organisation covering 750,000 students in more than 2,000 schools, to accommodate students and parents. Obviously, the strong desire by everybody involved is to keep siblings together in the same school. That is not always possible, but I am confident to say that in 99.99 per cent of the time it is achieved successfully. The department and the terrific people who work within it do as good a job as they can to make sure that occurs. As I said, it is not always necessarily possible because demand in some schools requires boundary changes to be made. A school must take an enrolment from within its boundary, but if that public school has vacancies it can take enrolments from outside its zone. When the school is full, it is able to take enrolments only from inside its zone. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24305
Sometimes difficulties occur when a student is taken from inside the zone in kindergarten and a few years later a sibling seeks to enrol in the same school but the boundary has changed and the family now resides outside the zone. This is when difficulties arise. I understand that the inner west has about half a dozen such examples where zones can change from one street to another. We are not necessarily talking about vast changes to zones, which also can happen. Although students may not live within the zone, the department certainly attempts to accommodate the family. I urge any parent who faces that situation to contact the school principal first. As I said, the department does everything it can to accommodate parents in those situations.
I thank the member for Balmain for his question. I appreciate the complexities, particularly in Sydney's inner west, regarding school capacity and other issues, including the impact of changing boundaries on enrolments. I appreciate the member's question as it reflects on the great reputation of public schools in New South Wales in which parents will fight hard to get their children enrolled. I mention particularly the staff and principals at all our public schools for the great work they do to provide a great education to our children.
CARBON TAX REPEAL
Mr THOMAS GEORGE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for Industrial Relations. How will the repeal of the carbon tax benefit households and businesses in New South Wales, and any related matters?
Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for his question and for the leadership he shows across a range of issues. It is important to have strong leadership to tackle the issues facing the State and country. Everyone in this House was absolutely delighted and ecstatic on 7 September when people across this country spoke and said it is time for a new Government. It was a delightful day to see Tony Abbott become Prime Minister of this country and a new Government that gives hope to the whole country.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the Treasurer. Members will come to order.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: A key part of the Federal election platform was that the carbon tax would be repealed. Agreement across politics is that climate change requires action. Even New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key—certainly not John Kaye—said:
… climate change will only be resolved when the really big emitters—China, India and the United States—are at the table.
Until that happens, why would anyone try to take a hard stick to the economy they represent? That is exactly what was not understood by those opposite, and certainly not in Canberra. In simple terms, the impact of the modelling in New South Wales was the loss of 31,000 jobs, with 18,500 lost jobs in the Hunter by 2020, unless the carbon tax is removed. Even in the Illawarra, 7,000 jobs would be taken out. In the overall economy, New South Wales is the hardest hit, losing $3 billion a year by 2020 and increasing to over $9 billion a year by 2030. Businesses suffer $4,000 through increased electricity costs. The NSW Business Chamber said:
Businesses indicated that the most significant cost pressure that they face … is the introduction of the carbon tax.
Businesses are taking away confidence across every member's electorate. Bill Evans, senior economist at Westpac, said:
Concerns about the … price on carbon are rattling households.
It is rattling households across this State and country and taking away confidence. Clearly, action is required. Even Kevin Rudd—we remember him, do we not? Certainly, the Premier remembers Kevin Rudd. He did not do many things right—
The SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the Treasurer. Members will cease interjecting.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: Kevin Rudd said:
The Government has got a number of things wrong. For example, I don't think our actions on the carbon tax were right.
That is what Kevin Rudd said.
Ms Carmel Tebbutt: You used to believe in climate change. 24306 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: I note that Albo did lose that contest, but we pass on our best. Interestingly, on that contest, the faceless men are still in control because the people wanted Albo. The faceless men said, "Forget the people. Let's go for Billy Shorten." The interesting thing about this debate is the impact. This is where leadership is required, which we have from the Premier. I am not sure that they have it from the Leader of the Opposition. If the carbon tax is removed, the average household in New South Wales will be $550 better off. We could conduct a quick poll. Hands up in the House who wants to get rid of the carbon tax. Oh dear! No wonder there is a leadership problem over there.
This is the opportunity for the aspiring leaders to take a position and when they come to decide the shadow ministry and say, "We are going to support getting rid of $550 in costs from every household in this State." That is a very good thing to do. Regarding lack of leadership, one can imagine this week's shadow ministry. Let us just picture it. All the shadow Ministers gather and in comes Robbo: "Oh, mate, why are they talking about that bribe? Why are they talking about that? It was only three million bucks. Mate, don't worry, don't worry." Pat him on the back.
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129. The Treasurer clearly is straying from the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The question was in general terms. It referred to related matters. There is no point of order. The member for Maroubra will resume his seat.
Mr Michael Daley: I should also remind the Treasurer, by the way, that New Zealand has an nutrient trading scheme [NTS].
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroubra will resume his seat. If he continues to act in an unparliamentary manner he will be removed from the Chamber.
[Extension of time granted.]
Mr MIKE BAIRD: It is interesting that the member for Maroubra took a point of order at that point. The member for Maroubra was not here today when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to his private member's bill. In fact, hardly anyone was here. That is the problem. On one side there is the hero of the middle managers and on the other the hero of the canaries. Where do you go?
Ms Sonia Hornery: Point of order: My point of order is relevance.
The SPEAKER: Order! The question was in general terms. There is no point of order.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: I am looking for leadership from that side of the House to help take away the cost of $550 from every household of this State. It is simple. While Opposition members charged ahead saying, "Don't worry about the bribe", others went into the corner and said, "Okay, who you are backing? Are you backing Daley? Are you backing Rees? Are you backing middle managers? Are you backing canaries?" Where do you go? Or is it the member for Heffron?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will return to the leave of the question.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: There is a smorgasbord of opportunity and choices. Hang on, the member for Toongabbie is back. The important thing for New South Wales is that while those opposite are in disarray, there is strong unity on this side of the House. That is why this Government is delivering for the people of this State.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. I cannot hear the Treasurer.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: While those opposite fight against removing a cost of $550 from the budget of every household in this State and putting confidence back into the business of the economy, the O'Farrell Government will stand firm and deliver for the State. [Time expired.]
Question time concluded at 3.11 p.m. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24307
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND SAFETY
Report
Mr John Barilaro, as Chair, tabled report No. 2/55 entitled "Managing Donor Conception Information", dated October 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr John Barilaro.
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Inquiry
Mrs Leslie Williams, as Chair, informed the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 299 (1), the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission had resolved to conduct an inquiry into the promotion of false or misleading health-related information or practices, the full details of which are available on the committee's home page.
COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN, THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND THE CRIME COMMISSION
Report
Mr Lee Evans, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 7/55 entitled "2013 General Meetings with the Police Integrity Commission, the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, the NSW Crime Commission, the Information and Privacy Commission, the NSW Ombudsman, the Child Death Review Team", dated October 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Lee Evans.
PETITIONS
The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:
Oxford Street Traffic Arrangements
Petition requesting the removal of the clearway and introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit in Oxford Street, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.
Walsh Bay Precinct Public Transport
Petition requesting improved bus services for the Walsh Bay precinct, and ferry services for the new wharf at pier 2/3, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.
Pet Shops
Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.
Pig-dog Hunting Ban
Petition requesting the banning of pig-dog hunting in New South Wales, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.
Duck Hunting
Petition requesting retention of the longstanding ban on duck hunting, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.
Inner-city Social Housing
Petition requesting the retention and proper maintenance of inner-city public housing stock, received from Mr Alex Greenwich. 24308 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
Container Deposit Levy
Petition requesting the Government introduce a container deposit levy to reduce litter and increase recycling rates of drink containers, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.
The Clerk announced that the following Minister had lodged a response to a petition signed by more than 500 persons:
The Hon. Chris Hartcher—Coal Seam Gas Exploration—lodged 12 September 2013 (Ms Linda Burney).
BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING
Ministerial Statement
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [3.14 p.m.], by leave: For the benefit of members, I indicate that the number of bush and grass fires has increased to 83. Two more have been added to the emergency warning status: Blackjack Mountain, west of Muswellbrook, and Andrews Road at Leppington.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing orders, the House will now consider business with precedence.
MEMBER FOR BLACKTOWN
Motion of Censure
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega—Minister for Finance and Services) [3.14 p.m.]: I move:
That the House censures the Leader of the Opposition for:
(1) His failure, when in a position of trust and authority as Secretary of Unions NSW, to report to police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or any other authority a $3 million bribe offer by Michael McGurk regarding the proposed sale of Currawong.
(2) His failure to report the bribe offer to police at any time before or after the murder of Michael McGurk.
(3) His failure to account fully to New South Wales authorities, to the membership of Unions NSW and the people of New South Wales any details of the bribe offer.
This is a serious issue. We have a political leader in this State who refuses to answer questions concerning Currawong. His integrity is in question. There has been a conspiracy of silence in relation to this matter.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: We have a leader before us who is unfit to stand for Premier and unfit to lead a political party, and a member who is unfit to be in this House. This is a serious issue. The Attorney General, who will also speak this afternoon, will outline the seriousness of this issue as it relates to the Crimes Act. We do not move this motion as some form of playing politics.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members who continue to interject will be removed from the Chamber without warning.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Following this afternoon's debate a clear message will be sent to the community that this Government will not accept the fact that for six years the Leader of the Opposition refused to bring to the attention of authorities a bribe offer of $3 million. Earlier this year the Leader of the Opposition released a document entitled, "A New Standard." The first standard in this document is titled, "Your right to know." A number of serious issues are at hand. The Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself to venture into the press gallery, without rhyme or reason walk into the News Limited bureau and disclose that a bribe was offered to him by Michael McGurk throughout the Currawong sale process.
The first fundamental question that needs to be asked is what the hell was going on at that time with the culture of the union movement and the Labor movement in this State that a businessman could walk up to the 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24309
head of Unions NSW and offer to deposit $3 million into the bank account of the Leader of the Opposition? There were not one but two meetings involving the Leader of the Opposition and Michael McGurk. Moses Obeid made it clear that he had been on the phone to request such a meeting. These meetings now beg further questions. This afternoon specific questions will be put to the Leader of the Opposition, which he must answer, to be accountable for what has occurred. Beyond wanting to know what culture led to a businessman making such a bribe, we also want to know who else was involved in the meetings and why Michael McGurk was allowed to put forward a bid for the Currawong property.
No doubt the behaviour and conduct of Labor connections in this State over an extended period has led to a loss of confidence in the Labor Party, and that has continued with Labor in opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said in his inaugural speech that without a moral compass any system is doomed to fail. He has also said that it does not get more serious than bribery when it comes to the conduct of public officials—those are his words. This goes to the heart of the integrity of both the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition. To have disclosed this issue to a journalist six years later indicates that the Leader of the Opposition was struggling with it. If a man who a couple of years earlier had offered a $3 million inducement was murdered one might think it appropriate to report it to New South Wales police.
Although the sale of Currawong has been well canvassed in the media, a number of serious questions about the sale remain. For example, did the Leader of the Opposition, who was at the centre of this process, have any discussions with union members other than Mark Lennon about the bribe? Was it brought to the attention of the person who was conducting the sale process? Was it brought to the attention of the probity auditor engaged after the process? The former Government made a decision to purchase the Currawong property in its dying days in office. Did the Leader of the Opposition disclose the bribe to the then Premier or her then Chief of Staff, Walt Secord? No, he did not, and he also failed to disclose a number of other important facts.
Members will recall that the Crown lands department put in a bid for the Currawong property but former Minister Michael Costa and then Director General Warwick Watkins decided not to proceed with it. According to the Leader of the Opposition, Eco Villages successfully made an unconditional $15 million bid for the purchase of the property, despite the McGurk offer having been almost double that amount. Why? This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity to inform the House about the other organisations that made bids and what those offers were. The Leader of the Opposition will also have the opportunity to tell us why he refused an offer for more than twice the amount ultimately accepted when he was head of Unions NSW.
Mr John Robertson: You know so little about it, don't you?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: We know that in 2007 Unions NSW offered to sell Currawong to Eco Villages for $15 million. Why was the $30 million offer not accepted?
Mr John Robertson: Who was party to it?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting He will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: That is a valid question. Who was part of the Eco Villages bid? Interestingly, one of the parties to the Eco Villages bid was Allen Linz, who had also been a co-director with the Leader of the Opposition in a company called Get on Board. They were co-directors in a company set up to offer computers to union members. The Leader of the Opposition was also a Minister in the Keneally Government when Cabinet made the decision to purchase Currawong. Was a disclosure made about the relationship between Allen Linz and the Leader of the Opposition when it came to the co-directorship of Get on Board? Was a disclosure made to then Premier Kristina Keneally? Was a disclosure made to then Chief of Staff Walt Secord? Was a disclosure made to any other Minister at that time?
The involvement of the Obeid family is yet another component in this matter. At any point was Moses Obeid involved in any direct discussions or meetings with the Leader of the Opposition about Currawong? Since the 2011 election the Leader of the Opposition has continually tried to lecture the O'Farrell Government about integrity, honesty, and open and accountable government. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition recently 24310 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
called for Macquarie Generation to be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. When troubles were afoot in the media about the $3 million bribe the Leader of the Opposition pulled the press release from his website. Many questions need to be answered. The Leader of the Opposition has failed to answer—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members who continue to interject will be removed from the Chamber.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: —fundamental questions about this conspiracy of silence involving those opposite and the union movement in this State. The bottom line is that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to answer those questions. Members will remember the colourful correspondence entered into between Paul Keating and John Robertson. Paul Keating wrote:
Let me tell you, if the Labor Party's stocks ever get so low as to require your services in its parliamentary leadership, it will itself have no future. Not a skerrick of principle or restraint have you shown. You have behaved with reckless indifference to the longevity of the current Government and to the reasonable prospects of its re-election.
Is it any wonder Eddie Obeid indicated that he had to strongarm the Right to allow John Robertson not only to come into this place but also to take on the leadership of the Labor Party?
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The strong ties between Eddie Obeid and John Robertson at that time are well known. We know that John Robertson stayed at Eddie Obeid's ski lodge. We know that this issue involves multimillion-dollar developments. We know that there are companies behind companies—one is registered in the British Virgin Islands—involved in the Currawong sale process, and bigger questions need to be asked in relation to Get on Board.
But the most fundamental question relates to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition somehow thinks it is acceptable to fail to disclose to the police, to the Independent Commission Against Corruption or even to the probity auditor that a bribe had been offered by Michael McGurk. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity to answer those fundamental questions. The Leader of the Opposition is unfit for office, unfit to run for the office of Premier of this State and, quite frankly, unfit to be a member of Parliament.
[Business interrupted.]
BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY WARNING
Ministerial Statement
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [3.29 p.m.], by leave: I wish to make a ministerial statement. I simply advise the House that I have been asked to go out to Rural Fire Service headquarters and so I will be absent for the remainder of this debate, which I do regret.
MEMBER FOR BLACKTOWN
Motion of Censure
[Business resumed.]
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [3.30 p.m.]: What is clear this afternoon is that this Government, after not quite three years, has run out of things to say. It has nothing to say about the future of New South Wales. It has nothing to say to the mums and dads out there, desperately clutching their kids while they sit in emergency departments waiting to be seen. It has nothing to say when it comes to the students who are being denied a better future and the opportunity to get a trade or to get a qualification because of the TAFE cuts made by those opposite. It has absolutely nothing to say to the employees and the tradespeople who are stuck in traffic because after three years this Government has failed to start a single infrastructure project in this State—not a single infrastructure project has been started.
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence. That courtesy was extended to the Minister for Finance and Services. Members who continue to interject will be removed from the Chamber. The member for Riverstone will come to order. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24311
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Instead, what we see from those opposite is a pathetic attempt to censure me because I terminated an inappropriate conversation with a person I barely knew—point-blank rejecting an offer for a business deal that was not even done, and setting someone straight that no grubby deal would ever be given any consideration in the sale of Currawong.
The SPEAKER: Order! Government members who continue to interject will be removed from the Chamber without warning.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This has to be the most pathetic time-wasting exercise ever seen in this Parliament. The events of Monday were pathetic enough, but today is just an absolute waste of the Parliament's time.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Shellharbour to order for the first time.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This is a most desperate stunt from a Government that is attempting to distract attention from the crises it is facing. The crisis in child protection is but one example. The Minister for Family and Community Services continues to mislead this House. She will not protect children; instead, she needs the Premier to come into this place and protect her. This is the most desperate of stunts from a Government that has added 36,000 people to the unemployment queue.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Shellharbour to order for the second time. I need to hear the point of order.
Mr Brad Hazzard: This is a serious motion. A number of essential issues are set out in the motion. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be brought back to the leave of motion.
The SPEAKER: Order! Debate is limited to the scope of the censure motion. I have been considering that point during the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. In defending himself, he should restrict his remarks to the leave of the motion.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: To the point of order: I am defending myself simply by making the point that this is a stunt and it is being used as a distraction from other issues.
The SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition may defend himself but he must not attack others during his contribution to debate on the censure motion. I have taken advice from the Clerk, and the standing orders and the precedents are clear on this point.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The fact is that this is a stunt, and I am simply highlighting the fact that the Government is using this motion as a means to distract the public from the crises it is facing. Some 36,000 additional people are now unemployed, yet the Government has slashed the daylights out of apprenticeship and training programs. We see this desperate stunt in Parliament today while the public housing waiting list has blown out—more than 57,000 applicants are waiting for accommodation. They are left out on the streets. This motion is a desperate stunt to cover up the fact that $3 billion has been ripped out of the health system. This Government sat on its hands for 14 months while desperate people waited for cancer surgery, and many of them now have inoperable illnesses. People like Nicole Perko and others were left waiting for cancer surgery until the Government was finally shamed into doing something.
This Government has ripped $3 billion out of the health system, which has seen the maternity ward at Nepean Hospital so understaffed that Paula Bailey was forced to give birth in the car park and Michelle Trotter was sent home with panadeine and pills and forced to deliver her baby on the kitchen floor. This motion is a stunt from a Government that is squirming in its miserable failure to deal with the things it promised to fix. We now have senior clinicians from the hospital system defying their employer and speaking out about the crisis in our hospital system—doctors like Dr Freelander, who called Campbelltown Hospital a "hospital in crisis". Dr Prahalath, the head of emergency, also spoke out. They are out there ringing the alarm bells. The funding is failing to keep up with population pressures in south-west Sydney, the fastest-growing area in the State.
This motion is a desperate stunt from a Government that should be beetroot red with embarrassment that average waiting times for elective surgery have ballooned to more than 50 days, giving New South Wales 24312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
the worst elective surgery waiting times in the nation by a country mile. Today the Premier and his henchmen have decided to come into the Chamber and throw some muck. Here are some real questions that the people of New South Wales want answered. Why does a child have to wait nine months to get their tonsils out in New South Wales?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Madam Speaker, I understand that you are trying to grant some licence to the Leader of the Opposition but he has now been speaking for seven minutes and he has not addressed any of the assertions or any of the detail in this motion. I ask that you bring him back to the leave of the motion.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to defend himself but he must also address the motion. I draw him back to the leave of the motion.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This motion is a stunt, and nothing more than a stunt.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will come to order.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: It is nothing more than a stunt to hide from the failures we have seen during 2½ years of the O'Farrell Government.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I have mentioned the waiting times for a child to have their tonsils removed. Why does a pensioner have to wait 10 excruciating months to get a knee replacement when it takes just five months in Victoria?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: It is in the same terms. Madam Speaker, you have indicated that the member should speak to the leave of the motion. He is abusing your direction. It is in his interests, the interests of the people of New South Wales and the interests of the House that he give an explanation of the matters that are before the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will return to the leave of the motion.
Mr Richard Amery: To the point of order: I note that the standing orders are silent on the content and style of debate on a censure motion. I respectfully ask, Madam Speaker, that you consider previous rulings on this matter. You will find that when a censure motion is moved against a member that member is given free rein as to how that member constructs his or her defence. Any curtailing of the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition is contrary to the spirit of previous rulings regarding censure motions.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter. I have directed the Leader of the Opposition to return to the leave of the motion. However, in accordance with previous rulings, he is allowed some latitude in his contribution.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Why was 92-year-old Marjorie Shaw of Jannali left waiting 90 minutes for an ambulance when she tripped in her backyard? She lay there sprawled out in agony. Why was Sid Jackson left waiting 105 days for urgent heart surgery at St George Hospital? Why was Demi Sita forced to sleep on the floor despite the fact that she had crippling appendicitis?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Listening to the earnest submissions that were made earlier, I remind members of the decision of Speaker Rozzoli. It acknowledges what has been said but takes us back to the essence of the motion. Speaker Rozzoli said:
In debating a censure motion a Member has a fairly wide latitude; however, rules of relevance continue to apply.
I ask you to bring the Leader of the Opposition back to the leave of the motion.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have directed the Leader of the Opposition to return to the leave of the motion. The ruling also refers to giving a member "fairly wide latitude". I have extended that latitude to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will continue to do so.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This is a stunt. The Government should be dealing with important issues such as the current bushfire crisis. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has been called to 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24313
Homebush, people are losing their homes in Springwood and evacuations are occurring in the Blue Mountains but we see this sort of rubbish occupying the time of this Chamber. That is why this is such a stunt. Houses are being lost in Yellow Rock, residents are being evacuated and fires are breaking containment lines, but Government members think this stunt is more important than dealing with those issues.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cabramatta will cease arguing across the Chamber.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Those opposite think this is more important than debating issues about education, health, TAFE cuts and the closure of fire stations across the State. They do not want to talk about that; they do not want to answer those questions. There is a simple reason why: They should hang their heads in shame over what is going on in New South Wales. No matter what the Government levels against me today, no matter how trumped up it is or how fanciful, hysterical and wildly untrue, members opposite cannot hide from the fact that there are problems in Sydney in the areas that I have mentioned. For that matter, there are problems with gangs and gun crime—and on that they again have a shameful record of doing absolutely nothing.
Those opposite have moved to censure me, yet the Premier and those on his side of Chamber defend a Minister who misled an upper House budget estimates committee hearing and who misleads this Chamber day after day. That is despite the fact that well-respected and highly regarded bureaucrats confirmed to an inquiry that the Minister knew all along. We have a Treasurer in hiding because of the appointments he is giving to his mates. No-one on the Government side is answering questions. I see the member for Wyong mouthing off. He is the only sitting member of Parliament that I am aware of in the history of New South Wales whose office was raided. I do not see anyone asking him to answer questions.
The SPEAKER: Order! I draw the Leader of the Opposition back to the leave of the motion. This is not an opportunity to attack other members.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: What about the member for The Entrance? If they want answers to serious questions, let us ask them the questions.
The SPEAKER: Order! I will direct the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat if he does not return to the leave of the motion.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: They are the questions that need to be answered. But let me be clear about these circumstances and the fanciful allegations being made. I have not been and I will not be afraid to answer any questions that are put to me by anyone who has the authority to ask those questions.
The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I am not afraid to answer those questions, which is why the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph—
The SPEAKER: Order! I direct the Clerk to stop the clock. Government members will come to order. The Minister for Finance and Services was heard in silence and I intend to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition is treated with the same respect. He is defending himself against a motion attacking his credibility and he is entitled to be heard in silence. I have directed the Leader of the Opposition to return to the leave of the motion and I have ruled that this is not an opportunity to attack other members in this place. The Leader of the Opposition is about to conclude his remarks. He will be heard in silence.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I will repeat what I have already put on the public record. The story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph was about an inappropriate offer that I rejected from a man I barely knew and a business deal I did not do. I regarded the offer as totally inappropriate. That individual left in no doubt as to my position. He clearly understood that I could not be bought by some grubby offer and that any offers in relation to Currawong had to go through the formal process. I immediately rejected outright an inappropriate offer and I was satisfied that was the end of the matter.
I make one other point. I had never found myself in a situation like that before and I have never found myself in a situation like that since. What I know is that I sent that individual packing and he was under no illusions that I would never entertain anything like that. I acted with the highest of integrity on this issue and I have always acted with the highest integrity on this issue. What I find most ironic is the number of Government members who slunk up to me outside the Chamber this afternoon and said how sorry they were for 24314 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
the rubbish that is going on and that there has never been a question about my honesty and integrity. Members of the Cabinet have approached me privately and said that. I will not name them, but let us be clear: That is confirmation that this is a stunt. There are members on the Government side who know that this is a stunt. They know as well as members behind me know that there is no question about my honesty and integrity. The tragedy is that the man who is pulling the strings has left the Chamber.
Mr Andrew Constance: He has gone to the bushfires.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I know why he has left and I am not criticising him for that, but he has left nonetheless. [Time expired.]
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Minister for Education) [3.45 p.m.]: This is a question about the judgement of somebody who seeks to be the Premier of New South Wales and to control a budget of more than $60 billion. We have seen the extremely bad judgement he exercised when he was the boss of a multimillion-dollar union. He now seeks to be the Premier of this State, who will be in control of 300,000 employees and a budget of more than $60 billion. We can see from the judgement he has shown that he is not worthy of the position.
The first question is: Why did he not disclose it? The second question is: Why did he eventually decide to disclose it? He did not disclose the $3 million bribe at the time it was offered. I do not think he disclosed it to anybody in the union, bar one other person. Did he make inquiries as to whether Mr McGurk offered bribes to other people? That is a question that he needs to answer. When Mr McGurk was murdered did the Leader of the Opposition not think that the fact he had been offered a $3 million bribe by Mr McGurk might be of interest to the police? When the police were asking the public for information about a high-profile murder did it not trigger in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition that he might have a potentially useful piece of information? That again raises questions about his judgement.
Ms Noreen Hay: You didn't think so about water licences, Adrian, did you?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will come to order.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Madam Speaker, do not worry about the member for Wollongong. This also reflects on her and the rest of the Australian Labor Party because they think this is okay. How is it that when a person who offered the Leader of the Opposition a $3 million bribe was murdered the part of the Leader of the Opposition's brain that makes judgement calls decided that it would be of no interest to police? That raises a real question about his judgement. There was then the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into the sale of Currawong. Again, one would think that would have triggered his judgement. So that is why he did not disclose it. But why he eventually did disclose it raises questions that are just as interesting.
There was going to be a puff piece about the Leader of the Opposition in the Daily Telegraph 18 months after the last election. That was when he decided to disclose that he was offered a $3 million bribe and say how honest it was of him to knock it back. That is why he disclosed it. It was an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to big-note himself. He tried to say that there are all these other dishonest people in the Labor Party but he got offered a bribe six years ago and is disclosing it now to show how honest he is. And this person seriously wants to be the Premier of New South Wales?
I ask this hypothetical question: What would have happened if this bribe had not been disclosed and one day he became Premier of this State and was in control of a $60 billion budget? The Leader of the Opposition now knows that it is not okay to be offered a bribe and not to disclose it. He might have been trying to big-note himself, so he might still think it is okay to be offered a bribe and not tell anybody. That is the real risk to New South Wales should the Leader of the Opposition ever become Premier of this State.
For however long the member for Blacktown is Leader of the Opposition—perhaps days or weeks at the most—we will be putting that proposition to the Parliament; hence this censure motion. This issue goes to a broader culture of corruption within the Labor Party with which we are all familiar. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that being offered a $3 million bribe is no big deal and that he can just say, "Off you go. Fancy that." The Leader of the Opposition said that the offer came from someone that he hardly knew. He was the leader of Unions NSW when Mr McGurk made an appointment with him. I presume that a member of the Health Services Union—some low-paid health worker who wants a meeting with the union boss—would not get to come through the front door. 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24315
I am suggesting that Mr McGurk was not someone that the Leader of the Opposition hardly knew as Mr McGurk made an appointment with the member for Blacktown when he was the leader of Unions NSW. I do not buy that argument for a second. The member for Blacktown knew exactly who Mr McGurk was. But because of this culture of corruption within the Labor Party and within the union movement—we have seen that over the past few days—the member thought that was okay. The member for Blacktown tells the people of New South Wales, "Vote for the Labor Party because I want to be in control of a $60 billion budget." There is no more frightening prospect in New South Wales than the member for Blacktown becoming Premier of this State, in control of that much public money. It reflects very badly on the other 19 members of Parliament who sit right next to him.
Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [3.51 p.m.]: In speaking against this censure motion I make an obvious point at the outset. Short of a vote of no confidence in a leader of this House, a censure motion is a deeply important part of parliamentary procedure. The fact that this Chamber is not full of Government members and the fact that the Leader of Government Business in this House took some pretty unedifying points of order when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking demonstrates that this is a stunt. I am not the first politician to have said that in politics it is all about context. As we speak homes are being burnt in locations around New South Wales. As we speak people's lives are in danger but the context of debate in this Chamber is very different. The censure motion that has been moved relates to the actions of a man some six or seven years ago before he became a member of Parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition outlined all the facts surrounding that matter and said that he never took the bribe; that he rejected it outright and sent the character on his way. In contextualising my defence of the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and in speaking against this motion I make the following points about people who are sitting in this Chamber. I will make these points but I will not pass any judgement; I will simply place on the record in context the matters that we are considering which will not be listed in any particular order. The former member for Clarence, by his own admission, falsely signed a statutory declaration. The member for Clarence did the honourable thing and resigned. I am on the record as acknowledging that I consider him a personal friend. I am simply making a statement of fact. That matter was never adequately pursued by the Attorney General—that is a statement of fact. The member for The Entrance and the member for Wyong recently had their offices raided by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which again is a matter of fact. I make no judgement about that; I am simply contextualising this motion.
The member for Willoughby was recently referred to extensively in the newspapers in relation to her arranging for contracts with Conrad Consulting and Capital Pty Limited. The actions of former Minister Pearce led to his departure from Cabinet. All those things happened whilst those people were members of this Parliament. Those things did not occur six years ago; they occurred when those people represented electorates in this Chamber or in the upper House. The member for Terrigal was also mentioned in dispatches, as was the member for Menai, who is on a good behaviour bond under section 10 while she sits in this place. If we are fair dinkum about a censure motion it must be given some context. There will be many views about how any member might have handled a similar situation, but the fact of the matter is that this occurred six years prior to the entry of the Leader of the Opposition into this Parliament. I refer next to the member for Hawkesbury whose branch meetings on occasions have been characterised by bare-knuckle fighting. The member for Londonderry made an error of judgement whilst he was a member of this Chamber. I again say that I am not passing any judgement against those members; I am simply saying that that is the context in which we are considering this matter.
All the matters I have outlined are germane to the activities of people who are currently members of this place. I cite the member for Ballina as another example but I will not go into that. Members will be aware of the point that I am making. Six years prior to entering Parliament the Leader of the Opposition was offered an inducement which he rejected outright. There is no allegation of criminality. There is no allegation of anything untoward other than the rejection of an inducement six years prior to becoming a member of Parliament. In stark contrast, sitting on the Government benches today are people who, whilst in office, have been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, or who have made an error in judgement that has led to a court appearance, an Independent Commission Against Corruption hearing, or an investigation. It is not appropriate for a censure motion to be moved in relation to something that occurred six years prior to someone becoming a member of Parliament.
[Business interrupted.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bushfire Emergency Warning
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.56 p.m.]: I interrupt debate to inform members of a serious matter. The 24316 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
Whips have been informing members about the seriousness of the bushfires in this State. The services of those members who are members of the Rural Fire Service might well be called upon. If any members need to be excused those arrangements can be made through the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip. A number of members have already left because of the bushfires in their electorates.
MEMBER FOR BLACKTOWN
Motion of Censure
[Business resumed.]
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [3.57 p.m.]: It was recently revealed by the Leader of the Opposition that when he was head of Unions NSW he was offered a $3 million bribe by the late Michael McGurk who was attempting to buy a property at Currawong owned by UnionsNSW. He rejected that offer. The Leader of the Opposition also confirmed that he did not bring this information to the attention of the relevant authorities which creates a big problem for the Leader of the Opposition. It is ridiculous for Opposition members to suggest that Government members have run out of things to say.
The Parliament is not supposed to turn a blind eye to the fact that there is a possible prima facie case of an offence against section 316 of the Crimes Act. That section states that if a person has committed a serious indictable offence—that is, Mr McGurk offering a secret commission or a bribe—and another person, who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and who has information that might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender, fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of a police force or other appropriate authority, that person—in this case Mr Robertson—is liable to imprisonment for two years. A serious indictable offence is an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more. The alleged conduct of Michael McGurk may constitute an offence under section 249B (2) which states:
(2) If any person corruptly gives or offers to give to any agent, or to any other person with the consent or at the request of any agent, any benefit:
(a) as an inducement or reward for or otherwise on account of the agent's:
(i) doing or not doing something, or having done or not having done something, or
(ii) showing or not showing, or having shown or not having shown, favour or disfavour to any person, in relation to the affairs or business of the agent's principal, or
(b) the receipt or any expectation of which would in any way tend to influence the agent to show, or not to show, favour or disfavour to any person in relation to the affairs or business of the agent's principal, the first-mentioned person is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
This is a serious criminal offence that had to be reported. I reported this to the Independent Commission Against Corruption soon after I learnt about it. The reasonable excuse certainly would not cover, "Well, because I told him to put the $3 million into the bid." That is what he said—encouraging Mr McGurk to make the bid.
Mr John Robertson: I didn't say that.
Mr GREG SMITH: The Leader of the Opposition also said that he met Mr McGurk twice. He told the Sydney Morning Herald that on one of those occasions, back in 2009, five other people were present. Was that the occasion of the offer of the bribe or was it another occasion? We do not know. There is also the question of whether UnionsNSW or the Leader of the Opposition himself may have benefited financially by not reporting the bribe offer. What do we get for not reporting it? We get $30 million.
Mr John Robertson: You are making an allegation against me—you are unable to substantiate it.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to defend himself.
Mr GREG SMITH: The Australian Construction Law Newsletter reprinted a Phillips Fox article on criminal conduct. That article states:
If information relating to criminal activity is discovered, it should not be used to procure a tactical or commercial advantage ... To remain silent on such issues may, in some circumstances, constitute the offence of concealing a serious offence ... Anyone who discovers information suggesting that a serious offence has been committed—
17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24317
We are talking about an offer of $3 million. If that is not a serious offence, I do not know what is. The article continues:
—whether or not they know it actually to be a serious offence—must act quickly and decisively. Swift action will help to avoid criminal liability.
An important question may be: Did Mr Robertson suggest to Mr McGurk that he add the $3 million to the tender, which is what he said he did, while at that stage not rejecting the tender, which he said he did not? Was it the case that he still wanted Mr McGurk to put in the tender in order to procure a tactical or commercial advantage for UnionsNSW? It is a matter for the police to decide whether or not they will investigate the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [4.02 p.m.]: What a curious offering. What a curious contribution by the Attorney General to debate on this censure motion. It is curious, first, that he even deigns to speak in debate on this motion. The member for Toongabbie spoke earlier about context. I remember when the member for Epping—the current Attorney General—was a new member and allegations were made about his conduct relating to a former workmate before he came to this place. He stood on this side of the House, seething with indignation. But now he has been instructed by the Premier—the man who knows nothing except how to play politics, in and out of the Chamber, day after day—the shoe is on the other foot and it is okay, under the cloak of privilege, to make accusations about another man in respect of actions that occurred before he became a member of Parliament. That is called hypocrisy.
It is curious that the Attorney General should contribute to debate on a motion that is dripping with all the accoutrements of a stunt. This stunt began last week when the Attorney General rolled the arm over with a half-hearted letter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] and it continued on Tuesday afternoon—not with a motion of censure led by the Premier or by a Minister, but a notice of motion put forward by two backbenchers. That speaks volumes about this censure motion being a stunt. On Tuesday, when those opposite moved the motion of condemnation—I have circled it on the motion—the word "honesty" stood out. With all the coverage over the past 10 or 11 days, not a single media commentator sought to impugn the honesty of the Leader of the Opposition but the member for Pittwater, in a half-hearted attempt, again obviously instructed—
Mr Thomas George: Who for years has been going crook about Currawong.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member for Lismore should not start.
Mr Thomas George: He has raised it in this House for years.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Lismore to order.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member for Lismore should be careful. The member for Pittwater, under instruction by the Premier, impugned the honesty of the Leader of the Opposition. Today we have a motion of censure but there is no reference to honesty in that motion. In two short days, in the middle of this political stunt, the Government has retreated from its earlier position. The Government is immersed in such a litany of scandals that they almost equal the number of members on the other side of the House. Members opposite have taken a string out of their own bow to attack the Leader of the Opposition. That attack is led not by the Premier but by a junior Minister.
Opposition members attempted to establish how the Government went about choosing who should lead this attack. When we look at the members on the Government frontbench we can see why those two members led the charge today. They led the charge because so many of those opposite have been disqualified because of their earlier behaviour. The member for Bega had the hide to say, "Questions have not been answered." Well we want to ask a few questions of our own. The member for Bega thinks he is too smart by half in talking about Eddie Obeid. Let us ask some questions about Australian Water Holdings. Does the Obeid family not have a $3 million stake in that company? I think it has been reported that it does. So we ask the question: From coast to coast in Australia which government has given Australian Water Holdings—with Nick Di Girolamo as chief executive officer, a Liberal donor; and Arthur Sinodinos, as chairman, a Liberal senator—not $30 million of work but $500 million of work? The contract was given without it going to Cabinet and in contravention of the advice of the Solicitor General. It was the O'Farrell Government.
If questions are to be answered this afternoon we want to ask: How many members on that side of the House have had their offices raided by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and in respect of what 24318 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
issue? The Premier should volunteer that information, because he knows what it is about. We want to know why it is okay for the Minister for Transport to shovel cash into Conrad Consulting and Capital Pty Limited and perpetuate the practice of a small group of Liberal Party insiders benefiting from the spoils of this Government. Members opposite are a bunch of hypocrites and this motion is a stunt. [Time expired.]
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [4.09 p.m.], in response: What is extraordinary is that those opposite are so light on any detail that they have to ask questions. They do not make allegations; they throw mud and ask questions. They ask questions but they advance nothing because they have nothing to advance. The reason they have nothing is that there is nothing to this, other than that this is a stunt. It became so pathetic that the member for Murrumbidgee began to talk about hypotheticals. He ran out of things to say or questions to ask and he was so desperate that we got to hypotheticals. I do not know whether he thought I was Geoffrey Robertson, instead of John Robertson, with the hypotheticals, but the fact is that he had so little to say that we got to the ridiculous point where he was raising hypotheticals.
Questions are being asked about Currawong. There have been numerous questions over the years and the member for Murrumbidgee and the member for Bega talked about them. Those matters came before the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Independent Commission Against Corruption determined that there was nothing untoward about them. Perhaps the member for Bega was not told about that but just followed the script given to him by the Premier. However, what is clear is that questions were raised and sent to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Independent Commission Against Corruption came back and said, "There is nothing to see here." The Attorney General gives an opinion to the House, but he is an Attorney General who has so many questions hanging over his head that I will not go into them. Most members in the House already know what they are.
All this time has been spent asking questions. I return to my earlier point: By the time this debate concludes we will have spent about an hour and a half of this Chamber's time debating a stunt that has no substance. Those opposite can bring forward nothing. They have just repeated themselves. For five minutes the member for Murrumbidgee basically repeated everything the member for Bega said, apart from his attempt at hypotheticals. This Government is so desperate to fill time in this Chamber, and so unwilling to address issues that matter, that it is prepared to waste this amount of time. As I said earlier, I am happy to answer questions from anyone who has the authority to ask them. Whilst the member for Bega may not like it, that is the reality of the circumstances in which he finds himself. He can fire arrows and throw mud and make all sorts of accusations that have no substance at all—as he so far has done and, no doubt, will do in his reply to this debate—but the fact is that I have explained this matter. I have continued to do so and I will more than happily continue to answer questions from anyone who has new questions they would like me to answer.
The most disappointing point is that the State is burning and people's houses are at risk—many members have had to leave this Chamber to return to their electorates, including the emergency services Minister—and yet this debate continues. Even more disappointing is that problems continue to arise in our hospitals, our schools and the TAFE system. Schools continue to close. We continue to hear questions about contracts issued by this Government. We continue to hear questions about appointments to boards and about companies such as Australian Water Holdings. We continue to hear about a range of much more pressing questions about matters of concern to the State and to the people of New South Wales. Yet, instead, we have this debate. Interestingly, this matter is not about my honesty or integrity; no-one has raised those issues. In fact, as the member for Maroubra highlighted, people have walked away from the question of my honesty. Every media report written about this issue—whether in newspaper articles, editorials or the like—has gone to great lengths to make the point that there is no question about my honesty: none whatsoever.
I am proud of the new standard document to which the member for Bega referred—a new standard I would like the Premier to apply to every member of this Parliament. Sadly, he refuses to act in a bipartisan manner with this new standard of pecuniary interest declarations so that people know exactly what is going on with those they elect, their spouses and other family dependents in relation to any decisions they make. Sadly, the question that continues not to be answered by those opposite is: What do they have to fear by applying the new standard for pecuniary interest declarations? Why will the Premier not apply the same standard to his own colleagues—the standard I have applied to the front bench on this side and which is contained in the pecuniary interest declarations?
Those opposite feign their belief in open, honest and transparent government. They pretend they are serious about it, but all they can do is pull this stunt. If they were serious about issues of integrity and honesty, the question the Premier should answer not just in here but also to the people of New South Wales is why he 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24319
will not apply that new standard for pecuniary interest declarations? Why will he not put in place a full-time parliamentary ethics adviser? Why will he not apply the same standard to those opposite regarding secondary employment? Because it is all too hard. This Premier, not surprisingly, is somebody who likes to play petty politics.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I am trying to give the Leader of the Opposition a fair go, but he has only three minutes remaining in which to answer any questions that have been put to him. I suggest that in accordance with the standing orders and the directions from a succession of speakers he has had more than ample latitude. When will we get the answers to the questions? When will he speak to the motion?
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Tell us about the fact you are an executor to a million dollar will.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not do himself any favours by making those sorts of comments. I understand the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition does not have to answer those questions. He is entitled to defend himself.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: New South Wales has a Premier who is happy to play petty politics rather than address the issues that matter to the people and the community. Why is that not surprising? It is not surprising because in New South Wales we have a Premier who has never had a real job. He has only ever been a political hack; a political operative. We have a political hack Premier. That is why he thinks these stunts are more important than addressing the issues of education, health—
Mr Greg Smith: Point of order: The censure motion alleged prima facie the commission of a crime by the Leader of the Opposition. He has done nothing to explain that he had a reasonable exception. Section 316 of the Crimes Act puts on him a duty and he has not explained why he did not fulfil that duty.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to explain himself in any way he wishes.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: If the Attorney General, the State's most senior legal officer, had bothered to take the time to read the motion, he would know that that is not part of the motion. To even get off his seat and come here shows his poor performance and judgement—a man who has very serious questions of his own to answer about judgement.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have cautioned the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: He has very serious questions to answer about his judgement. We end up with political stunts like this in this Chamber because we have a Premier who has never had a real job and is more interested in playing petty politics than in dealing with the issues that matter to the people of New South Wales. Today's stunt simply confirms yet again that we have a Premier who would rather play petty politics than address issues such as people on waiting lists for emergency surgery, women giving birth in car parks and on kitchen floors, people not being able to get jobs, people not being able to access TAFE, fire stations closed while New South Wales burns, and shortages and budget cuts right across the State. This motion is the rubbish they bring forward to occupy this House. [Time expired.]
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega—Minister for Finance and Services) [4.17 p.m.], in reply: The Leader of the Opposition was right to raise concerns about the bushfires around the State. No doubt they are worrying for all members and, coming from a country community, I know that we all appreciate the challenges facing communities. Obviously, the Parliament continues, which is why in my right of reply I shall reflect on a couple of elements of the debate. I particularly thank the member for Maroubra and the member for Toongabbie for their contributions. Neither of them defended the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, the member for Toongabbie made the point that this issue happened six years ago when the Leader of the Opposition was not in Parliament. Obviously, the member for Toongabbie thinks that should this have occurred with the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, the concealing of a crime is a very serious issue. I particularly thank the member for Toongabbie for again reinforcing the seriousness of the issue involving the concealing of a $3 million bribe by Michael McGurk.
The other point I make is about the member for Maroubra, who also failed to defend the Leader of the Opposition in his five-minute contribution. It seems that we have gone from the bright boys with John 24320 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
Robertson and Michael McGurk to the Bra boys with Michael Williamson and Michael Daley. No doubt in the weeks and months ahead the member for Maroubra will have a lot to answer for in terms of his relationship with Michael Williamson.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: The Minister in reply is meant to confine his comments to matters raised during the debate. The Minister is moving away from the leave of the debate to now making a personal attack on the member for Maroubra.
The SPEAKER: Order! This is a wide-ranging debate. The Minister is responding to points raised during the debate. There is no point of order.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I thank the member for the point of order. The member for Maroubra made reference to Australian Water Holdings, which of course involved Sydney Water. The member for Maroubra, 24-odd hours before moving into caretaker mode prior to the 2011 election, appointed Michael Williamson to the board of Sydney Water.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Order! Does the member for Macquarie Fields raise a different point of order? If the member takes vexatious points of order I will extend the Minister's speaking time.
Dr Andrew McDonald: There are two points of order. The first is that this is new content.
The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the member's point of order, but I am yet to be convinced.
Dr Andrew McDonald: This is the first time it has been mentioned in the debate. I think that would be defined as new content.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister may introduce new material in response to points raised during the debate.
Dr Andrew McDonald: It is a matter for you, Madam Speaker. The first is that this is new content. The other point of order is under Standing Order 76; this is a personal attack.
The SPEAKER: Order! There have been personal attacks across the Chamber all afternoon. There is no point of order.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Michael Williamson was appointed to State Water 24 hours before the caretaker mode. The mention of Australian Water Holdings brings into question the shadow Minister for Sydney Water, Walt Secord, who back then was the chief of staff to the Premier and what he knew about a Cabinet minute which Frank Sartor referenced in his book. No doubt a few questions will come forward about that matter as well. This afternoon the Government put a number of very serious questions to the Leader of the Opposition, who refused to answer them. This is a Leader of the Opposition who on Ben Fordham's program last week said he was happy to answer any questions in relation to the bribe of $3 million by Michael McGurk and any questions in relation to Currawong. We have some very serious questions that were not answered this afternoon. They were not answered because the bottom line is that when the Leader of the Opposition walked into Andrew Clennell's office on level 6 to obviously raise the issues of this bribe it meant there was something playing on the mind of the Leader of the Opposition at that point.
We do not know what that was; whether he thought he could just disclose to the Daily Telegraph that there was an attempted bribe, but he has not answered the question as to why he encouraged Michael McGurk to put that bribe in the $30 million bid of the McGurk matter. The bottom line is that the Leader of the Opposition has failed to answer some very fundamental questions. He failed to answer questions about his relationships with the winning tender in relation to Currawong that were brought about by the Getonboard co-directorship, and failed to answer a whole raft of questions that have been legitimately put to him this afternoon.
This censure motion sends a very clear signal to the community that this Parliament and the Government will not tolerate the concealing of bribery. The Attorney General made it very clear that it is the concealing of a bribe that is in contravention of the Crimes Act. These are serious issues that go to the heart of the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition, a leader whom we see as unfit to lead the Labor Party, unfit to stand for Premier and 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24321
unfit for any parliamentary party in this State. He wanted to talk about discussions that members have had with him. I would hate to start referencing some of the discussions that are happening between his own back bench or front bench and members of the Government about his performance as Leader of the Opposition. The bottom line is that the New South Wales Government is working tirelessly to clean up the mess left by members opposite, who were incompetent and corrupt year in, year out in the way they ran this State.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. This has generally been a good debate.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The Leader of the Opposition refuses to answer one question; in fact, he even refused to answer the questions asked of him by Ben Fordham on radio 2GB. He said on radio 2GB that he had somehow mentioned it to Andrew Clennell three months before the matter appeared and indicated that he had somehow referenced it and then of course was asked about it. The bottom line is that the Leader of the Opposition has given no sensible, justifiable reason for what has gone on. What was the culture that led to McGurk walking into his office to offer to put $3 million into his bank account? There has been no answer in relation to that and no answer as to why he did not go to the police or the Independent Commission Against Corruption. But what he did do was continue to encourage Michael McGurk to bid for the Currawong property.
There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition will continue to be judged. This issue is not going to go away for the Leader of the Opposition. It will continue to haunt him right up until the next election. The Leader of the Opposition has failed the test of integrity, the test of honesty, the test of openness and the test of accountability, which he seeks to apply through his standards. It is a sad day when the Leader of the Opposition, who spends his entire time muck-raking on members in this place and who all of a sudden has the blowtorch applied to him about a refusal to talk about real issues that matter to the people of this State, comes in here this afternoon and fails to answer one question put to him by the Government. We look forward to the Leader of the Opposition one day being open and accountable about this matter but we very much doubt it. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 55
Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Piccoli Mr Aplin Mr George Mr Piper Mr Ayres Mr Grant Mr Provest Mr Baird Mr Greenwich Mr Roberts Mr Barilaro Mr Gulaptis Mr Sidoti Ms Berejiklian Mr Hartcher Mr Smith Mr Bromhead Mr Hazzard Mr Souris Mr Brookes Mr Holstein Mr Speakman Mr Conolly Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Constance Mr Kean Mr Toole Mr Cornwell Dr Lee Ms Upton Mr Coure Mr Marshall Mr Ward Mrs Davies Mr Notley-Smith Mr Webber Mr Dominello Mr O'Dea Mr R. C. Williams Mr Doyle Mr Owen Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Mr Page Mr Evans Mr Parker Tellers, Mr Flowers Ms Parker Mr Maguire Mr Fraser Mr Perrottet Mr J. D. Williams
Noes, 19
Mr Barr Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Dr McDonald Ms Watson Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Mr Zangari Mr Daley Mr Park Ms Hay Mrs Perry Tellers, Mr Hoenig Mr Rees Mr Amery Ms Hornery Mr Robertson Mr Lalich 24322 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
Pair
Mrs Skinner Mr Furolo
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMENTS
Personal Explanation
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [4.37 p.m.], by leave: The Minister for Finance and Services in his speech in reply raised a number of issues about me and Michael Williamson. Firstly, he asserted that I had appointed Michael Williamson to the board of Sydney Water. The Government will be furnished with those documents of appointment that I signed and will know that it was not in fact my appointment; it was an appointment recommended by the Treasurer. As was my practice at the time as junior shareholding Minister, I merely countersigned that recommendation. Secondly, the member also made the threat that in the coming months someone would raise issues about my relationship with Michael Williamson. It will not take long, because there was not one. My relationship with Michael Williamson was merely incidental; I met him at conferences and the like. I say to the Minister and any other member in this Chamber that if they have assertions to the contrary to not raise it here but to take it to the appropriate authority.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [4.38 p.m.]: I move:
That sessional and standing orders be suspended at this sitting to provide that the House adjourn, without motion moved, at the conclusion of the discussion on the 10,000 signature petition.
In the normal course of business, the discussion on the petition signed by 10,000 signatures or more in relation to coal seam gas mining in catchment areas would take place. As has been raised in the House, bushfires are burning across the State and in the Sydney region. This requires a reordering of business. It would be inappropriate not to discuss the petition as people in the public gallery have travelled a long way to listen to the debate. Following the discussion on the petition, the House would usually deal with community recognition statements, then private members' statements and then adjourn. I propose that the time for community recognition statements and private members' statements be allocated to next week or the following week so that members and staff can leave at an appropriate juncture to ensure that their families and properties are safe and they can do whatever is necessary to protect their communities.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Melanie Gibbons): Order! It being after 4.30 p.m., discussion on the petition signed by 10,000 or more persons will be proceeded with.
COAL SEAM GAS MINING IN WATER CATCHMENT AREAS
Discussion on Petition Signed by 10,000 or More Persons
Mr LEE EVANS (Heathcote) [4.42 p.m.]: Today I speak on behalf of the member for Wollondilly, who has headed back to the Wollondilly electorate due to the bush fires. He is working hard to protect the catchment and will be working in the State Parliament in the coming weeks to ensure the catchment is protected. I will read from the statement that Mr Rowell has provided to me. The New South Wales Government is committed to protecting the quality of Sydney's drinking water and the health of the catchment and, as such, it 17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24323
has a range of strong policies in place to protect the catchments, including a State environmental planning policy for the Sydney water catchment, which requires that all proposed development must have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality.
All users, including mining and coal seam gas companies, must comply with the requirements of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 and regulation, which enables the Sydney Catchment Authority to impose conditions on the way the catchments are used and if and when access is granted. Our Aquifer Interference Policy is the strongest in Australia and puts New South Wales well ahead of any other jurisdiction when it comes to groundwater protection in Australia. It specifically protects aquifers and groundwater through a number of measures, including water licensing and minimal impact requirements.
The BTEX chemicals in coal seam gas fracking fluids are banned. There is a rigorous statewide significant assessment system. The Planning Assessment Commission earlier this year refused a proposal for coal seam gas exploration boreholes within the Sydney water catchment. Those who wish to see more detail can visit the Planning Assessment Commission website. The Government is committed to ensuring proper and adequate protection of the State's rivers, streams, aquifers, groundwater and vital catchments. In February 2013, the New South Wales Premier announced a range of new measures to ensure that coal seam gas operations are appropriately regulated across New South Wales, which include: a proposed two kilometre exclusion zone around residential areas to prevent new coal seam gas exploration; assessment and production activities, covering both surface and underground works impacting on communities; and exclusion zones to apply to identified critical industry clusters such as viticulture and equine industries
The Environment Protection Authority is now responsible for environmental regulation of all coal seam gas operations and has been given additional resources to focus on coal seam gas. All coal seam gas operations, including exploration, assessment and production, must hold an environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority. These licences include strict conditions designed to protect the environment and safeguard ground and surface waters from pollution and, through these mechanisms, ensure that the State's water catchments are protected. The licences include requirements for companies to monitor the environment and any emissions. The results of this monitoring must be publicly available and must be reported to the Environment Protection Authority. This provides the community with a transparent regulatory system.
The New South Wales Government's exclusion zones and strict regulatory framework are non-negotiable and will require the industry to meet the New South Wales Government's best-practice standards. The New South Wales public can be confident that gas extraction activities with unacceptable impacts will not be approved by the New South Wales Government. During the 16 years of the former Labor Government 44 four coal seam gas exploration or production licences were approved. Labor approved and renewed coal seam gas exploration licences with no community awareness or input, with no concern for agricultural or environmental impacts, and with no consideration of any potential impact on our drinking water.
Six petroleum exploration licences [PELs] were granted and 10 petroleum exploration licences were renewed during the period John Robertson was a Minister in the former Government, from September 2009 to March 2011. In September 2009 the Labor Government issued a planning approval to Apex Energy for 15 exploration boreholes in the Darkes Forest area, 11 of which were located within the drinking water catchment. I thank everyone in the public gallery for giving up their time today to come to Parliament for this discussion. I commend the petition to the House.
Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [4.47 p.m.]: I start off by thanking the men and women in the public gallery, the communities of the northern Illawarra and other parts of New South Wales for what has been one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. I particularly extend thanks to Jess Moore and Chris William for their leadership, input, assistance and advocacy on behalf of the community that I love and on behalf of the community that I call my home. Very rarely in Opposition does one get good days. As I have said on many occasions, Opposition is full of very dark and bad days and it is not where one wants to be as a member of Parliament. But today it is a very good day because today New South Wales Labor made right a wrong that occurred prior to the last election. The wrong was to allow coal seam gas exploration and extraction to take place in some of the most sensitive lands in our community. It is a wrong that should never have happened. It is a wrong that I said when I was preselected for the electorate of Keira that I would fight to stop. Today in this House the Leader of the Opposition introduced a bill that protects the Sydney water catchment area from coal seam gas extraction forever and a day. That should have happened some years ago.
My mother always said to me that two wrongs do not make a right. My mum always said when you have got it wrong to stand up and say so, and then do what you can to fix it. Most Australians accept that mistakes happen, and Labor made a mistake. I do not walk away from that. I was punished for it significantly in 24324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17 October 2013
the last election with an 18 per cent swung in the electorate of Keira—it is an electorate on a knife edge—and we lost the electorate of Heathcote. Those electorates are in that position because of decisions made by Labor, such as coal seam gas mining. I accept that. I could have sat silent in the House and said that, technically, it does not relate to the electorate of Keira. But I did not. I have made it a commitment and passion since March 2011 to see New South Wales Labor correct a wrong and to introduce in this place legislation that will protect the most precious of all natural resources—safe clean drinking water. Millions of people around the world do not have access to clean drinking water. In Australia we probably take this resource too much for granted. I think it is so worth protecting our drinking water supply that politicians like me should be bold enough to say they got it wrong and then work darn hard to fix it.
Today in this Parliament the Leader of the Opposition went a long way to fixing the wrong of the past but that wrong can only be fixed if the O'Farrell Government joins us. The time for talking is over. The legislation has been tabled in the oldest Parliament in this country and the debate will soon begin. As community leaders we have an opportunity to protect our drinking water supply. Those on the government side need do nothing more than honour the commitment made prior to the last election—"no ifs, no buts; a guarantee". That is what was expected. In a week or so members will be expected to pass the legislation without any fanfare as a simply way to protect the water catchment area not only for our generation but also for my son's generation. We need to ensure that our most precious resource is given the utmost priority in this Parliament. It is time to lay our political swords down and say, "Mistakes have happened in the past but together we can correct it." I thank each and every one of those people seated in the gallery for the fight and determination they have shown to one of the most important issues every to be debated in New South Wales Parliament.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [4.52 p.m.]: I thank the House for the opportunity to make a contribution to debate and the community for raising their concerns to ensure that our water catchments are safeguarded. The issue of access to coal seam gas has been a mighty challenge for the Government in its 2½ years in office. I well recollect that when we came to government about 6 per cent of the State's gas supply came from coal seam gas in the south-west of Sydney. In fact, it had been produced there for the best part of two decades—substantially over the lengthy period of the former Labor Government. It was apparent to the O'Farrell Government that serious issues needed to be addressed to ensure that appropriate safeguards were put in place.
The O'Farrell Government embarked on an exercise that sought to turn on its head the previous two decades of the Labor Government not having done anything about putting those safeguards in place. We drew in as many members of the community as we could, and as the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I had numerous meetings with community members and stakeholder groups, including those particularly interested in water issues, strategic agricultural lands, the equine industry, the viticultural industry and environmental groups. It was a challenge because people were never going to all agree to the final best way forward. So the Minister for Resources and Energy put a stay on new exploration licences while we tried to develop the necessary procedures. Of course, announcements have now been made, such as the announcement about the introduction of the new Gateway Panel, which the Government has no influence over.
I can assure those seated in the public gallery that whilst they may not exactly agree with what the Government has done, the Government has tried very hard in the past 2½ years to bring into play the necessary safeguards that neither the community nor the Government thought existed. For example, the Government has introduced the Aquifer Interference Policy, which did not exist before. I well recollect public servants telling me that the Water Management Act was very subjective until the O'Farrell Government started putting objective criteria in place. Indeed, the Government will continue to try to do more in this area. The Government will also continue to give residents the assurances they need at the same time as it accesses the resources that belong to the taxpayers.
Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [4.55 p.m.]: In the few minutes I have to make a contribution in this debate I will make two very clear points. In the lead-up to the last election Barry O'Farrell made a very clear commitment:
The next Liberal/National Government will ensure that mining cannot occur … in any water catchment area, and will ensure that mining leases and mining exploration permits reflect that common sense; no ifs, no buts, a guarantee.
That is the heart of the petition. The people of New South Wales are fighting for Premier O'Farrell to honour the commitment he made about coal seam gas. It is well known that there have been significant issues regarding water. In fact, despite the Department of Infrastructure and Planning recommending approval for Apex Energy's 16 coal seam gas well project, the Planning Assessment Commission refused it. The Planning Assessment Commission made it very clear in its determination that there are ongoing problems with water. The commission said:
There are still uncertainties surrounding the risks and potential impacts of coal seam gas activities; and policies relating to coal seam gas activities are currently evolving.
17 October 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24325
The Government has not adhered to its commitment. I take this opportunity to thank those in the community who fought so hard to get 10,000 signatures on this petition. Not only has their campaign turned government policy but it is helping to turn the ship around on Labor policy. We heard the discussion about the Coal Seam Gas Prohibition (Sydney Water Catchment Special Areas) Bill 2013. It covers a very limited amount of areas but it is a good start. In order for us to have the full and proper protection against the worst elements of coal seam gas exploration we need the community to be on board. The Greens are on board. We need the best elements of Labor to fight for that position inside their own party. We also need to encourage, cajole and push the industry and the Government to ensure the strongest possible protections. Under the former Labor Government the protections were horrific. We have made some progress but there is much more to do.
In conclusion, I highlight one final important fact. We have now had three 10,000 signature petitions in this House about this matter. That demonstrates an unprecedented commitment by people to express their views in the community. A recent Essential Research poll indicated 87 per cent of people support banning coalmining and coal seam gas activity in water catchment areas and within two kilometres of rivers and wetlands. It is not good enough just for the viticulture industry or the horse stud and equine industry; it is important that all people are protected. The protections we enjoy in the city should be extended to the country. Importantly, our water catchments should not only be protected for us but for critical environmental protections and our drinking water supply.
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) [4.58 p.m.], by leave: I thank those people seated in the gallery for the great work they have done in gathering another 10,000 signatures and for their strong visual presence to illustrate their opposition to coal seam gas mining in water catchment areas. I support the request of over 10,000 petitioners for a ban on coal seam gas mining in water catchment areas. Mining activities can have devastating permanent impacts on water systems. Adjacent land is cleared and degraded, removing vital habitat for ecosystems that sustain clean and healthy water. Pollution from dust and chemicals contaminate the water, which makes it unsafe to drink and further harms the ecosystems. Cracked riverbeds from mining activity can cause subsidence, which reduces the amount of clean water reaching our catchments.
In February the State Government approved expansions to the Dendrobium mine for long-walls under 12 upland swamps within the Avon dam, which supplies 8 per cent to 9 per cent of Sydney's drinking water. Upland swamps filter contaminants from the water before it reaches the catchment, and subsidence and cracking could drain and pollute these swamps. The Sydney Catchment Authority and the Office of Environment and Heritage say remediation of these swamps is unlikely. Swamps are vital to the health of our catchments and should not be put at risk. In fact, the four mines already operating in Sydney's metropolitan special areas drain about three billion litres of water from Sydney's supply each year. Coal seam gas exploration licences also exist across Sydney's five big drinking water catchments. I share concern with the petitioners that these should not be developed into full mines. Contaminated water stores for coal seam gas mining could burst or overflow and pollute the catchments.
Coal seam gas mining is a heavy-duty industrial activity that has no place in the delicate ecosystems of our water supplies. The Sydney Catchment Authority wants coal seam gas banned from catchment designated special areas because it could significantly compromise their values, as well as longwall mining near major lakes and reservoirs. Sydney's water catchment provides drinking water to 4.5 million people in the Sydney-Illawarra region. The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy predicts that by 2031 Sydney will need to accommodate an extra 1.3 million people. Securing a large supply of safe clean drinking water will be essential to our quality of life in the face of population growth. We should not risk the integrity of Sydney's water catchments for short-term mining profits. Contamination is not something that can be safely fixed.
The State Government has moved to ban new coal seam gas within two kilometres of residential areas and has initiated an independent review of coal seam gas activities by the New South Wales Chief Scientist and Engineer. These are good first steps and I oppose proposals by the Federal Government to intervene and fast-track coal seam gas approvals. The State Government should go further and ban mining and coal seam gas activities in and adjacent to drinking water catchments. Our water catchments provide an essential and irreplaceable service and any risk should be banned, not managed.
Discussion concluded.
The House adjourned, pursuant to resolution, at 5.01 p.m. until Tuesday 22 October 2013 at 12 noon.
______