90
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 30 April 2003 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Inaugural Speeches
Motion by Mr Scully agreed to:
That the business of the House be interrupted to permit the honourable member for Rockdale to make his inaugural speech forthwith.
INAUGURAL SPEECHES
Mr SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [10.00 a.m.] (Inaugural Speech): It is an honour to rise as an elected member of this Parliament and I am particularly proud to have been elected the member for Rockdale. It is an electorate as ethnically diverse as Australia itself, with the majority of its residents coming from non-English speaking backgrounds, the major groups being Arabic, Greek, Macedonian and Chinese. Whilst the constituency is a culturally diverse community there are issues of common concern to the people of my electorate, the major issues being planning and development and crime relating to car hoons, especially in Brighton-Le-Sands. Other issues of concern to the constituency include the protection and preservation of open space, the care of the Botany Bay foreshore, traffic, public transport and, I might add, the performance of Rockdale council. My priority as the local member will be to work as hard as I can to address these concerns.
The seat of Rockdale was first established in 1927. It ceased to exist due to boundary changes in the 1930s but was reborn in 1941, and has not looked back since. Five representatives have served as members for Rockdale: James Arkins from 1927 to 1930, former Minister John McGrath from 1941 to 1959, Brian Bannon from 1959 to 1986, former Premier Barrie Unsworth from 1986 to 1991, and my immediate predecessor, George Thompson, from 1991 until last month. I would like to thank George Thompson for his enormous support, help and encouragement in my bid to win the trust of the people of Rockdale. George is universally liked and much respected both within the electorate and in this Parliament. I would also like to thank the Hon. Barrie Unsworth for his encouragement and assistance.
Having been a political independent for most of my public life, I now belong to a party with strong and proud traditions, a party of profound depth, good counsel and support. I cherish this new belonging, and I reaffirm today my commitment to uphold Labor's traditions and to help achieve the aspirations of its members and of my colleagues in this place. I feel it is here I can best make my contribution to public service. Election to public office is one of the greatest privileges that democracy confers on its citizens. That privilege brings with it obligations. My paramount duty is to serve the people with my utmost skill and commitment. To achieve elected office matters little if one cannot say at the end, "I have done my very best and hope that that has made a real difference." I recall feeling the same intense sense of responsibility when I became Lord Mayor of Sydney, but left much relieved, knowing I had given it my best shot.
My personal story is typical of many whose families made their homes in this land of pioneers. Mr Speaker, I recall your comments yesterday. Arriving in 1949 and 1950 from northern Italy with four children, my parents, Cesare and Ida, had four more children of whom I was the first. They eked out a meagre living on a farm in Yenda, near Griffith. My mother died of cancer when I was 16, having travelled to a distant place, Rome, lured by a newspaper report of a cure for melanoma—an urge for cancer sufferers that I have come to know again.
The older five children fended for themselves and the younger three were sent to boarding schools. I consider myself to have been the luckiest. I was able to finish my schooling, win a scholarship and attend 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 91
Sydney University. After two degrees and two jobs, by accident I found myself working in this place. In fact, I was at home for a period looking after my eldest boy, Oliver, when one day my wife came home at midday, caught me sitting on the couch in my pyjamas, with Oliver on my knees, watching Mike Walsh, and the next day she brought in an advertisement for me to get a job.
From August 1983 until August 1986 I worked with the Public Accounts Committee and its successive chairmen: the Hon. Michael Egan, MLC, the Hon. Robert Carr, MP, the Hon. John Aquilina, MP, and the Hon. John Murray. As fate would have it, these relationships, forged then, despite a brief cooling when I contested the seat of McKell in 1988, became a platform on which was built a strong relationship between the City of Sydney and the New South Wales Government from 1995 until the present. This was unquestionably a key factor in the success of the council in transforming central Sydney from a city that slipped into hibernation as night fell and its work force went home, to a living city—one in which not only hundreds of thousands work but many thousands also live and play. Let me take this opportunity to thank my colleague the Hon. Sandra Nori for defeating me in that election. A better turn she could not have done me.
My time as Lord Mayor of Sydney was stimulating, challenging and rewarding. I was privileged to participate in the Olympic bid, the Olympic Games themselves and other official visits, celebrations and world- class events, as well as the many tasks and challenges that faced the City of Sydney over the last decade. These experiences gave me many insights into how the city operates, how the Government operates and how local government operates. I took away with me an abiding conviction that the system of local government needs reform.
Such reform need not be revolutionary, but it must be sustained and comprehensive to drive this cumbersome system of local representation to better service delivery for its constituencies. I believe that many councils express poor performance characteristics, particularly in core services such as processing small development applications, urban design outcomes, public domain management and maintenance, poor infrastructure and poor community facilities. Some have degenerated into debating societies where the public interest is rarely expressed for fear it may offend narrow local interests. This is only a personal view, and it is not for me to pursue this avenue any further. I wish my colleague the Hon. Tony Kelly, MLC, well with his responsibilities in this area.
My entry into public life through the City of Sydney in April 1984, and into the mayoralty in 1991, was only possible because of the enormous support I received from my wife of 20 years, Judith Fleming. She saw my passion, and gave me every encouragement and help. My sons, Oliver and Jack, saw less of their dad than maybe they should have, but added their encouragement and support. They are fantastic boys, and I love them dearly, and I am thrilled that they are here today.
In making my transition to the State Parliament I must thank a number of people. Firstly I thank the Premier, whose sage counsel and gentle encouragement made me think about the possibility—much more, I might add, than his autographed tome The Ungovernable City by John Lindsay, inscribed with the words "Public Service, Frank". Thanks also to Paul Keating, the Hon. Michael Egan, Ministers Carl Scully and Craig Knowles, as well as the honourable member for Kogarah, the honourable member for Georges River and Graeme Wedderburn for their help and advice, and a special thank you to Minister Morris Iemma for all his help. In the end it was the Labor Party that made it all possible, at both administrative and local levels.
I would like to offer special thanks to Eric Roozendaal, Mark Arbib, Michelle Chambers, Chris Minns, Angela Koutoulas, Shaoquett Moselmane, Leceister Ramsey, Doug McClelland, Nikhil Rughani, Mary Yiakoulis, Phil Lang, Janelle Saffin, MLC, Tony Dupesovski, George Clark, Danny Koutoulas, Bill Saravinovski, Robert McClelland and many branch members too numerous to mention here. They not only generously accepted my candidature but also gave tireless assistance with the campaign.
New Year's Eve at the turn of the millennium is a night that will linger in my memory. At the celebration that night I met a young woman who subsequently became my partner. Hephzibah Tintner was born in Perth and raised in Melbourne. Hephzibah's career as a ballerina, actor and opera director took her to the artistic capitals of the world, but she was just as at home here in Sydney where she came to start a new life. On 26 April 2000 she was diagnosed with cancer. After a journey through the hospitals and treatments available in this State, she died on 21 June 2001 at the age of 30 years. She was a fit, young vegetarian non-smoker, let alone a hugely talented, gifted and lovely human being. Such a waste of life can have an immense impact on those left behind. I note Christopher Reeve's comments during the New South Wales Premier's Forum on Spinal Cord Injury and Conditions, which was held in Sydney on 27 January. He said: 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
I often wonder why it takes a direct emotional connection for our elected officials and prominent members of society before they are willing to help us.
There may be truth in that, but the same could also be said of all aspects of human achievement. People are driven by those things that touch us deeply as individuals, but we should not be limited to acting passionately on those things alone. The whole area of science and medical research will receive my highest level of commitment. I began to get involved in the fight against cancer by starting a cancer foundation to assist the Sydney Cancer Centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. It is a sad reality that experiences with cancer in our society are now almost universal. The cancer shadow falls in every street, every school and every workplace. Seventy-eight per cent of people have a friend or relative with cancer. Every year over 29,000 people in this State are diagnosed with cancer.
Every year over 12,000 people succumb to it. The United States loses 560,000 people to cancer every year. Despite declaring war on cancer in 1971 under the Nixon sponsored National Cancer Act and allocating large public and private endowments to the struggle, 32 years on the great superpower has not conquered cancer. In this country our struggle with this disease is brilliant in part, always conscientious and universally competent, but while united in our common goal, the efforts of our finest scientific minds in the field of medical research are stretched in many directions.
The research effort requires better co-ordination, better targeting of resources, and more of them. But now the cancer strategy in this State has been given a new prominence through this Government's commitment to the creation of a New South Wales Cancer Institute. This commitment is backed by financial resources, so an opportunity has been created and the challenge has been laid down. Now I urge our scientific and medical research communities to seize the opportunity that is before us. Researchers, clinicians, carers and support groups alike can now bring their collective experience and knowledge to bear on what is a noble task.
I believe that with the engagement of all stakeholder groups we can enhance cancer prevention, increase cancer survival, and improve the quality of life for those affected. But I would also like to take this opportunity to strike a note of caution: I do not want to be a prophet of false hope. While our scientists venture upon the frontiers of medical discovery, our progress is often measured in years and decades, not in months. My aim is to make government a catalyst—an agent that encourages and nurtures good science and good outcomes for patients, families and survivors. This is a bipartisan cause for which we must all surely be united. I am motivated simply by merit-based innovation and reform that will deliver the greatest good for the greatest number in the quickest possible way. (Extension of time agreed to.]
There are many other areas of medical research to which the same must apply. I want to highlight the Government's BioFirst and biotechnology initiatives and to test which of the many areas of need would most benefit from greater government involvement, patronage or support. Areas such as mental health, immunology, diabetes, spinal injuries and heart disease are among the many medical research areas competing for resources.
I wish to take a little time today to pay tribute to some of those unsung heroes who toil quietly in laboratories and research centres looking for the means to save and prolong the lives of people with serious illness. All of them are ordinary Australians doing extraordinary work. They form part of a long list of Australian unsung heroes who are always there to support us in times of need. They are our nurses, firefighters, teachers, police and carers in homes, nursing homes and hospices. To this list can be added many others—the workers who are running our power stations and treatment plants, and our sewerage facilities like those that I visited at Bondi and Malabar last week. We must never forget or fail to recognise their contribution.
Good public administration has many challenges that go beyond the political demands of public policymaking. As I have already learned in public life, there is a danger that public administrators fall captive to the monocultures of expertise that seek to advance their particular agenda in isolation from, and sometimes at the expense of, the broader community interest. These fiefdoms of influence, or silos of knowledge as I call them, are valuable repositories of expertise and skill which we must draw on, but we must never become subservient. We must work diligently to deliver the collective values of the community.
The population pressures on Sydney and the coastal strip of New South Wales present many challenges for a Government concerned with being environmentally responsible. I know what this means in the areas of energy and water supply. We want our water to be affordable, plentiful and clean, but we do not want any environmentally harmful consequences—moreover, when our land is subjected to drought time and time again. We want cheap and abundant power with large peak capacity for hot days and cold nights. But our addiction to comfortable living comes at an environmental price. Much has been achieved through electricity reform. Our 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 93 prices are the lowest in mainland Australia, with electricity users in New South Wales saving $1.7 billion since 1995. Significant environmental and economic challenges remain though in the supply of these core services. I look forward to being part of a Government that meets these challenges.
I stand here as a member of Parliament representing the people of Rockdale. I also stand here as a Minister of the Crown serving the people of New South Wales. I consider these responsibilities an enormous privilege. They are a call to greater effort. I will do my best. I thank honourable members.
Mr SPEAKER: I extend to the honourable Minister my personal congratulations and best wishes for what I know will be the start of yet another brilliant career.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Scully agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the resumption forthwith of the adjourned second reading debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Commencement) Bill.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMMENCEMENT) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 April.
Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [10.16 a.m.]: At the outset I offer my congratulations to the honourable member for Rockdale on his inaugural speech and also on his role in pursuing cancer research. Obviously all honourable members wish him well in that role. But in his other roles of cleaning up the mess in the utilities, we wish him good luck. Mr Speaker, I also congratulate you on your election yesterday as Speaker. This morning all members of the Opposition read Hansard to make sure that your words were repeated in print. We look forward to your new approach to managing the business of this House.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Commencement) Bill once again shows that in 2003 the Opposition in this House is still helping the Government out of a mess. It exemplifies what has been happening in New South Wales over eight years. Time and time again the Opposition has had to come into this House to simply clean up another mess for the Government. I state at the outset that while the Opposition will not oppose this fairly straightforward bill that gets the Government out of a hole, this bill shows that the Government is not prepared to implement its own legislation. This legislation was supposed to commence on 1 May. For the benefit of those who have not looked at a calendar recently, that date is close. In spite of the Parliament not having been in session for four months, the Government is still not ready to implement its own bill. It is the pattern of this Government; it is something that happens time and time again.
I will not slam the Minister for Police at the table because he has walked into this mess. Later I will talk about some of the other messes he has created. This bill is classic Michael Costa: walk into a portfolio, make a big show, a lot of smoke and mirrors, get himself in front of the camera—preferably with his tie off—be seen to be doing something, and then walk out the door and leave everyone else to clean up the mess. We have seen it in his first portfolio, police, and we are now seeing it in his transport portfolio. We have now seen Bob Carr move the Government’s biggest problem area, transport, into the upper House, give it to Michael Costa, and we are seeing classic Michael Costa again: walk in, smoke and mirrors, lots of action in front of the camera and creating as much mess as he can. He seems to be one of those people who carries around a china shop in his back pocket so he can run amok.
Mr Martin: How about you address the question?
Mr DEBNAM: I will come to you too. We will talk about Bathurst too. Michael Costa seems to be one of those people who will run amok in a china shop at a moment's notice—I think he must carry it around with him. Perhaps we have moved from a situation where we have Ministers in the chair talking about legislation and running the business of the House to a point where we have Parliamentary Secretaries. Perhaps we should get the head of department in and say "Listen, the Government doesn't know what it’s doing on this legislation. Are you actually ready?" Perhaps we should make sure the head of department is sitting here during question time so 94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 that before we pass each piece of legislation we can say to the Government "Hang on, we have got to check; we have got to get a second opinion from someone who is actually running the department. Are you ready to implement it?"
In this case the legislation went through in November. We agreed to help the Government again. There is a problem right across the State and the Coalition will help the police do their job. In November we said, "We will help you get this legislation through the Parliament quickly". In April we said, "We assume you’ve done your job", but clearly the Government has not done its job. Here we are again helping the Government by saying yes, we will agree to this legislation which delays the commencement date. However, having re-read the Hansard this morning I see the Minister did not comment last night on the likely commencement date. I assume the Minister has done his homework and maybe he now knows when the legislation will take effect. Could the Minister in his reply speech give an indication of the commencement date. If he cannot do that, perhaps in the other place with a few more hours to spare he may be able to give the Opposition and the police in New South Wales an indication of when this will come into effect.
This is a wake-up call for the Carr Government: it really has to do better with its homework on the legislation; it really has to put more effort into researching the detail of it and making sure it is ready to move beyond the press release. The whole culture of the Carr Government is about the human headline, it is about the press release, it is about 24 hours of media management; it is not about implementing anything. It is time in its third term that the Carr Government moves to the process of implementation of legislation. The Minister for Police, who is at the table, has presided over a number of problems in previous portfolios. One that springs to mind is home warranty insurance, which has been handed on from Minister to Minister. The Premier simply keeps churning his Cabinet around, reshuffling it without achieving progress in any portfolio. I hope that the Minister, in his current role as Minister for Police, will actually get it right—do the homework and look at implementation, not just at press releases. With those few words, as I said at the outset, we will not oppose the bill.
Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Police) [10.23 a.m.], in reply: I thank the Opposition for supporting this legislation. Regarding the commencement date, there will be discussion with the Attorney General because at the end of the day it is the Attorney General who will gazette it. I am hopeful that will occur towards the end of this year, but I am happy to discuss it with the shadow Minister as the year progresses. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Police) [10.26 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill was introduced on 11 December 2002 but was unable to pass through all stages. The bill responds to those who dishonestly tamper with unique identifiers on goods for the purpose of concealing a theft and depriving rightful owners of those goods the chance to recover their property. Many types of goods are supplied with a serial number by the manufacturer or retailer. The Government's crime prevention policy also encourages citizens to mark personal property with their own personal identifiers. This has been a feature of Neighbourhood Watch programs for many years. NSW Police Crime Prevention Officers assist by loaning citizens engraving equipment for this purpose. The Government also encourages people to consider new microdot technology, where unique electronic markers can be sprayed onto motor vehicles and other personal property.
The Government has already taken legislative steps to use the spread of unique identifiers to better target the stolen goods market. The Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 aims to reduce the extent to which pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers are wittingly or unwittingly involved in the disposal of stolen goods. NSW Police has established a Pawnbrokers Unit, which maintains a database of second-hand and pawned goods. The Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act requires second-hand dealers to report to the unit the details of a wide range of goods likely to have unique identifiers, including musical instruments, photographic equipment, most electric or electronic goods and computer hardware. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 95
Specifically in relation to pawnbroking, the Act requires that a pawnbroker's records of pawned goods must note any unique identifier on the goods. These records are transmitted electronically to the NSW Police pawnbrokers database, which is used for intelligence purposes and to identify and track stolen goods. The effectiveness of the database depends to a significant degree upon the use of discrete identifiable serial numbers or markings against which the database can be searched. The criminal law as it stands does not adequately address dishonest tampering with identifiers on goods. There are offences relating to the malicious or dishonest damage to property under sections 195 and 197 of the Crimes Act, but these as they stand are not suitable for dealing with offences where unique identifiers on property are tampered with.
Currently damage to property means that the function, usefulness or value of the property is in some way impaired, even on a temporary basis. The removal of an identifier—for instance scratching off a serial number—will not generally impair the function or usefulness of the property, with the function of a piece of property and its ability to be identified being two distinct things in almost all cases. The bill rectifies this problem by amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. It also makes a facilitating amendment to the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996. Schedule 1 provides that removing, obliterating, defacing or altering unique identifiers on goods falls within the definition of "damage to property" for the purposes of the Crimes Act 1900. This is defined broadly to include outright removal of identifiers as well as alterations to them.
Schedule 1 defines "unique identifier" to include identification numbers, letters or symbols that are marked on or attached to property as a permanent record so as to enable the property to be distinguished from similar property. This covers a broad range of identifiers such as manufacturers' serial numbers as well as personal identifiers that owners may have put on their goods themselves. Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedures Act 1986 in respect of the manner in which such charges may be tried. As noted above, the actual dollar value damage of tampering may be very small and it is unlikely to impede the function of the goods.
Dollar value damage determines whether a matter is a table 1 or table 2 offence under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986—this being relevant to the election of whether the matter is heard summarily or by indictment. The amendment makes it clear that in cases of identifier tampering the value of the damage to property is the value of the goods. So if a thief scratches out a serial number on a DVD player worth $500, the damage done is taken to be $500, not the negligible value of scratching out the serial number. This ensures that the justice system focuses on the criminal intent to deprive an owner of the goods, rather than on the small actual damage done. This should lead to appropriate sentences for what is a premeditated strategy to confound investigations and deprive owners permanently of their property.
Schedule 3 amends the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 to deem that a licensee or employee of a pawnbroking or second-hand business suspects that an item whose identifiers have been tampered with is stolen. This requires the dealer to notify that fact to police, which will assist with timely police investigation of the case to determine whether the goods are indeed stolen. The requirement to notify also acts as a deterrent to those persons in the second-hand business who may be tempted to trade in stolen goods. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Debnam.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [10.32 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to preclude motions for urgent consideration and matters of public importance being taken at this sitting.
This is a most unusual suspension of standing and sessional orders. I know that the Opposition is concerned about this motion and I indicate that the reason for it is certainly the exception rather than the rule. Urgent motions or matters of public importance are adjourned to another day onlyin the most exceptional of circumstances. The Government proposes that urgent motions and matters of public importance not be considered today, to allow condolence motions to be moved in respect of the late Sir Davis Hughes and the late Jim Anderson. As a mark of respect to both those former members and their families, normal business should be set aside following question time today to deal with those condolence motions. At the conclusion of debate on the condolence motion in respect of the late Jim Anderson I will move that the House adjourn. It is unusual for such a motion to be moved, but these are special and exceptional circumstances. 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Mr TINK (Epping) [10.34 a.m.]: I would have less trouble with the motion if, as the Leader of the House said, its effect was to adjourn or postpone urgent motions. However, the effect of this motion is to do away with an urgent motion and a matter of public interest listed for today. The motion is not to adjourn those two matters; rather, they are gone! Another urgent motion is listed for tomorrow. It goes without saying that all members on this side of the House were very sad to learn of the untimely passing of Jim Anderson. I do not want to diminish that sentiment, but I must make the point that urgent motions raise urgent and exceptional matters in the public interest generally.
Whilst I understand and accept the bona fides of this motion, the Opposition cannot yield to it because more general issues relating to urgent matters and matters of public importance must take priority. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions. There is time to debate the urgent motion, the matter of public importance and the condolence motions. The House can sit until that is done. Whilst I accept the bona fides of the motion, and we are all genuinely and deeply saddened by Jim Anderson's untimely passing, the Opposition maintains its opposition to this motion.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 50
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Bartlett Mr Hickey Mr Price Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Mr Black Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Scully Miss Burton Mr Knowles Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Tellers, Ms Gadiel Ms Nori Mr Ashton Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin
Noes, 37
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Armstrong Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Maguire
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 97
HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources), on behalf of Mr Iemma [10.50 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Health Legislation Amendment Bill incorporates a number of proposed amendments to legislation within the Health portfolio, namely, the Health Services Act 1997, the Mental Health Act 1990, the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Act 1964, the Poisons and Therapeutics Goods Act 1966, the Royal Society for the Welfare of Mothers and Babies Incorporation Act 1919 and the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000. The various amendments are to ensure that these Acts are kept up to date and operate effectively.
I will now outline the nature of these amendments. First, in relation to the Health Services Act, the bill introduces amendments to clarify that medical indemnity insurance under section 85 of that Act has the same meaning as approved professional indemnity insurance under the Health Care Liability Act 2001. In 2001 the Government introduced the Health Care Liability Act to help address the medical indemnity crisis. The Health Care Liability Act introduced the requirement for all medical practitioners practising in New South Wales to be covered by approved professional indemnity insurance unless exempt by the Act or regulations. The Minister for Health approves the kind and extent of insurance cover doctors must carry. In addition, the New South Wales Government moved to extend Treasury Managed Fund coverage to the public patient work of visiting medical officers and, where relevant, their practice companies.
As the Health Services Act currently stands, where a visiting medical officer contracts with a public health organisation through his or her practice company, the company must carry a level of public liability and medical indemnity insurance approved by the Director-General of Health. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Health Services Act to clarify that medical indemnity insurance under the Health Services Act has the same meaning as professional indemnity insurance under the Health Care Liability Act. This will enable consistency between the kind of cover visiting medical officers' practice companies are required to have under the Health Services Act and the mandatory cover requirements of the Health Care Liability Act.
The amendment will also clarify that a medical practitioner's practice company does not need to carry medical indemnity insurance when it is exempt under section 19 (4) of the Health Care Liability Act 2001 in respect of medical services to be provided under the relevant service contract. The Treasury Managed Fund coverage for public patients is one such set of exempt circumstances. This bill also introduces an amendment to the Act to allow the Minister to appoint a member to the board of a statutory health corporation in lieu of the staff-elected member where the statutory health corporation has a staff of fewer than 50. The Act currently requires the boards of both area health services and statutory health corporations to include one member elected by the staff of the organisation.
The Act requires those elections to be conducted by the New South Wales Electoral Commission. Having a staff representative on the board provides a useful channel for staff and management to address various issues. However, where a statutory health corporation has a very small staff, the time, expense and resources involved in conducting the election process is difficult to justify. As a case in point, the New South Wales Institute for Clinical Excellence was created in December 2001 as a statutory health corporation to address training and education and to set priorities for health services research. The corporation currently has five permanent employees. The employees operate as an executive unit liaising with the board, area health services, health professionals and other stakeholders. As such, the institute does not have the same day-to-day work force issues faced by other statutory boards and the staff representative position would be better utilised in providing additional expertise to the institute's board in its main educative and research functions.
In order to accommodate such circumstances it is proposed to amend clause 2 of schedule 5 to the Act, which deals with the election and the appointment of staff-elected board members to allow for the Minister to appoint a person where the corporation employs fewer than 50 people, thus saving the expense of an election. The Government also proposes minor amendments to the Mental Health Act in relation to the appointment to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Mental Health Act currently provides that the Mental Health Review 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Tribunal is to consist of members appointed by the Governor. Of the members appointed to the tribunal, one is to be a full-time member appointed as the president of the tribunal; one or more may be full-time members appointed as a deputy president of the tribunal; and the remaining members, if any, may be appointed as full- time or part-time members.
The proposed amendment will enable the deputy president to be appointed on a part-time basis. This will allow for greater flexibility where, for example, the workload of the tribunal warrants the appointment of additional part-time deputy presidents rather than, as at present, requires the positions to be filled on a full-time basis. The bill also makes a minor consequential amendment to the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975. It is also considered necessary to amend the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Act 1964. The Institute of Psychiatry is established by the Act as a not-for-profit organisation, the objects of which are directed at research and training in relation to mental illness. The institute is partly funded through the health budget that generates more than one-third of its income from fees charged for education courses that it runs.
The Act contains a general power enabling the institute to do and perform all acts and things necessary to give effect to its objects, but it does not contain an express authority to charge fees for courses. While there is no suggestion that the institute has been acting beyond its power in charging fees, in accordance with advice provided by the Crown Solicitor, the bill proposes to amend the Act to put the institute's ability to charge fees beyond doubt. The Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 and regulation establish the framework for the regulation and control of poisons in New South Wales. This regulatory regime is designed to prevent accidental poisoning, medical misadventure and abuse and it is an important tool in ensuring public health and safety.
As part of this objective, part 4 of the Act contains a specific set of provisions designed to restrict and regulate the possession, manufacture and supply of drugs of addiction. Division 2 of part 4 of the Act contains specific restrictions on the prescribing of drugs of addiction as a treatment for drug-dependent persons. Under these provisions, drugs of addiction can only be prescribed as treatment for a drug-dependent person where a medical practitioner has been granted a special authority by the Director-General of Health. These provisions regulate the prescription of methadone and buprenorphine and represent the legislative basis for the NSW Health methadone program.
Sections 28A and 29 of the Act grant the director-general the power to issue approvals to prescribe and supply drugs of addiction and to impose conditions on such approvals. When exercising this power the director- general relies on the recommendations of the medical committee which is established under section 30 of Act. The provisions also allow the director-general to revoke an approval with the regulations establishing powers for an immediate suspension of an approval where there is a risk to public health or safety. The bill proposes to make a number of amendments to this regulatory regime to improve and enhance the oversight of the New South Wales methadone program. First, as I indicated, the regulations currently allow suspension of authorisations to supply drugs of addiction where there is a risk to public health or safety.
However, a question has arisen as to whether this regulatory power was sufficiently broad to cover approvals granted under the Act. To put this matter beyond doubt, it is proposed to place the suspension power in the Act itself. The bill therefore provides for suspension of an approval or the imposition of conditions on an approval when the circumstances are sufficiently urgent and when the director-general is of the opinion that the action is necessary for the purpose of protecting the life, or the physical or mental health, of the medical practitioner or any other person. This is the same test currently used in the regulation.
Section 29 will also be amended to allow the recognition of electronically generated forms, including applications and authorities to prescribe drugs of addiction. The aim of this change is to support the Department of Health's current project to develop an Internet-based system designed to increase the efficiency of processing applications. The system will include appropriate security mechanisms to verify and protect the information provided. The bill will also make some amendments to ensure that the director-general and the Medical Committee are able to obtain all relevant documentation they require to properly perform their regulatory role. At the moment information is obtained through enforcement and monitoring of compliance activities, involving voluntary provision of information by approved prescribers and through reliance on the powers of entry and seizure contained in section 43 of the Act. The aim of the bill is to improve both of these options.
New section 30AA will allow the Medical Committee to obtain relevant information from both the Health Care Complaints Commission and the New South Wales Medical Board when considering a possible contravention of an approval or the related provisions of the legislation. As honourable members would be aware, the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Medical Board have a key role in the assessment, 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 99 investigation and determination of complaints against medical practitioners. Information they hold on, for example, outstanding disciplinary action relating to misuse of drugs by a practitioner can be directly relevant to that practitioner's obligations under the poisons legislation. The amendment proposed in the bill will allow the committee to obtain this information, and thus ensure that it has relevant information to hand when considering these issues. It will also prevent the duplication of effort on the part of the various regulatory authorities and, by avoiding duplication of effort, will also ensure a quicker response to situations when there is an issue of public safety involved.
It should, however, be emphasized that the power will be subject to tight constraints in relation to both who may exercise it and the circumstances in which it will apply. The exercise of the power will be confined to the Medical Committee or persons operating under delegation from that committee. Further, the power will only be available in circumstances when the committee is investigating a breach of the legislation or a breach of an approval under part 4 of the Act. As I have already indicated, the second set of powers relied on to oversee the New South Wales methadone program arises out of the search and seizure powers in section 43 of the Act. These are also to be enhanced by the bill.
The section 43 powers operate for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Act or the regulations are being complied with. The activities of approved prescribers of methadone and buprenorphine are also covered by the conditions of the director-general's approval under section 29. Similarly, the activities of methadone clinics are governed by their licence and licence conditions. While these approvals and licences are given under the terms of the Act, it is considered important to ensure that the Act clearly states that the powers established under section 43 apply not only to the Act and regulations but also to any approval, authority or licence given pursuant to the Act or regulations and any conditions thereunder.
In addition, the current powers granted under section 43 do not allow inspectors to access documentation of approved prescribers or clinic records, but are directed almost entirely to the seizure of goods and tracking their supply. While this is highly appropriate in relation to most breaches of the legislation, effective enforcement of part 4 of the Act, which deals with access to and regulation of the supply of drugs of addiction to drug-addicted persons, requires an ability to access clinic records. It is only by examination of the records that inspectors can ascertain whether the conditions imposed by the Act and legislative approvals are being complied with. Records of a prescription are, for example, critical in establishing whether an approved practitioner is prescribing in accordance with a recognised therapeutic standard and in a quantity within such recognised standards. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that these changes to section 43 will also apply to the activities of methadone clinics, and will allow examination of records relevant to auditing compliance by a clinic with its licence and licence conditions. They will thus provide the regulators with a more effective tool in their oversight of both practitioners and clinics.
In addition, the enhanced section 43 powers will also apply to provisions relating to schedule 4 appendix D substances such as anabolic steroids and barbiturates. Under the legislation, prescription of such "prescribed restricted substances" must only be for medical treatment and in accordance with the "recognised therapeutic standard". Again, in order to properly check possible breaches of these provisions, it is important for inspectors to be able to obtain access to the relevant records. Finally, as honourable members would be aware, in March last year the Government announced new measures designed to combat the use of anabolic steroids, particularly among body builders and gym enthusiasts. In statements previously made to the House, the then Minister for Health noted that the most recent national drug strategy household survey revealed a 30 per cent increase in lifetime steroid use for non-prescribed purposes.
That means that there may be as many as 40,000 people in this State alone who are using or have used anabolic steroids. Steroid abuse has well-known negative side effects. Two homicides in New South Wales have been linked to roid rage, as it is commonly known. Anabolic steroids are currently classified as schedule 4 appendix D drugs under the legislation. As one of the measures being taken to combat the growing abuse of these drugs, the bill provides for an increase in the maximum penalty for illegal possession of these drugs from six months to two years imprisonment. Such penalty may be imposed either separately or in addition to a fine of up to $2,200. The Department of Health has consulted a number of relevant bodies during the drafting of these amendments, including the Attorney General's Department, the Office of the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner and the Health Care Complaints Commission. They have indicated broad support for the proposals. In addition, both the Medical Board and the Medical Services Committee have indicated support for the proposed amendments.
Section 11 of the Royal Society for the Welfare of Mothers and Babies' Incorporation Act 1919 provides that the Governor, on the recommendation of the society’s council, is to make by-laws for the 100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 management of the society’s affairs. The by-laws are primarily concerned with the internal management of the society. The Regulation Review Committee has suggested that the Act be amended so that the by-laws no longer need to be made by the Governor, and therefore would not be subject to the staged repeal process under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. As suggested by the committee, the bill amends the Act to permit the society to make its own by-laws. Finally, minor amendments are also proposed to the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 to ensure that all bars, pubs and nightclubs within Star City Casino are included in the general bar and gaming area exemptions under section 11 of the Act.
The amendment proposed is designed to address an anomaly arising from the fact that section 11 failed to include premises regulated under the Casino Control Act, but only those premises under the Liquor Act and Registered Clubs Act. It represents no change in government policy. Future amendments to the Smoke-free Environment Act have already been announced to underpin the agreement between the hotel and club industry and the Government for the phased rollout of non-smoking around bars. This phased rollout will also extend to premises in the casino environs. The various amendments to legislation that I have outlined are designed to ensure that the relevant pieces of legislation operate effectively. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr O'Farrell.
FOOD BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources), on behalf of Mr Iemma [11.10 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I have pleasure in introducing the Food Bill 2003. This bill is in the same terms as the Food Bill 2002 that was introduced in September 2002 and which lapsed when Parliament was prorogued for the recent election. The Food Bill is a major step towards a national uniform system of food regulation. The bill is the culmination of extensive work by a large number of public officials from all levels of government and from all jurisdictions over a number of years.
As the bill is in the same terms as the Food Bill 2002 I do not intend to discuss the detail of the bill in depth. However, honourable members may wish to review the second reading speech of the then Parliamentary Secretary for Health when the Food Bill 2002 was introduced on 17 September 2002. I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 1 of the bill. This clause will provide New South Wales with the power to modify by regulation the application of the Food Standards Code within this State. Honourable members will be aware that when the Food Bill 2002 was before the other place there was substantial debate over possible operation of clause 141 and that, as a result, clause 141 was amended.
The Food Bill I am introducing today includes clause 141 in its original form, without the amendments approved in the other place. I draw the attention of the House to this matter as I wish to emphasise the importance of the provision and the possible adverse consequences of amending or removing it. The Food Standards Code provides a nationally consistent mechanism for food safety standards. However, it must be recognised that the wholesale application of the code may not be appropriate for all jurisdictions. There is a need for flexibility to recognise the local issues and local concerns. In this regard, honourable members should be aware that these issues have also been recognised outside New South Wales, with the food legislation in South Australia also allowing for modification of the code by regulation.
It is important that honourable members take note of the fact that the wording of clause 141 in the New South Wales bill requires the Minister, before making any modifying regulation, to certify that a proposed regulation will not have a significant impact on the implementation and enforcement of uniform food laws in Australia. There should therefore be no concerns that by adopting the clause as drafted New South Wales will be able to undermine the national consistency of food legislation. The most immediate area in which the New South Wales Government wishes to modify the code is the notification of food businesses. The code requires that all food businesses in New South Wales notify the Department of Health of their existence and location. For the purposes of notification under the code a food business includes fundraising activities by charitable bodies, such as cake stalls and sausage sizzles. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 101
It is clearly unnecessary and inappropriate for fundraising and community activities conducted by volunteer and charitable organisations such as the Country Women's Association or a surf life saving club to be subject to the notification system. That system is primarily designed to assist regulatory agencies to identify food businesses to support regular compliance monitoring activities. I emphasise that the proposed exemption for charitable groups will only apply to these notification provisions and will not in any way exempt those activities from the general requirements of the bill and the overriding principle that food is to be safe and fit for human consumption. I am sure honourable members will agree that the Food Bill 2003 represents an important advance in the ongoing development and implementation of a robust and effective food safety regime in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr O'Farrell.
CONSUMER CREDIT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (FINANCE BROKERS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [11.16 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will significantly improve the protection offered to consumers who use the services of finance brokers, increase competition in the finance broking industry, and bring legislation governing finance brokers into line with new industry practices. Finance brokers, or mortgage brokers as they are sometimes called, provide intermediary services between persons seeking finance and credit providers, usually in return for a commission paid either by the client or the credit provider. A finance broker finds suitable potential lenders offering credit products that match their client's needs, assists the client in applying for the loan and obtains approval for the loan. The loan contract is then taken out between the credit provider and the client.
Finance brokers are becoming increasingly important in the Australian credit market. Since the deregulation of the Australian finance sector in the 1980s there has been a proliferation of different types of consumer credit products, particularly in the area of home loans. Increased competition between lenders has resulted in a high level of consumer awareness of the range of finance products available, accompanied by an increased motivation to find the best possible credit arrangement. In this environment, finance brokers are increasingly being used to help consumers compare and assess credit products. The nature of finance broking has also changed. Rather than charging a client commission, many finance brokers now receive their commission from the lender. While this style of broking is often marketed as a free service, many consumers are not aware that the broker's recommendations may be influenced by the amount of commission paid by different lenders. Given the important role played by finance brokers and the trust placed in them by consumers, providing consumers with protection from unfair practices and with sufficient information to enable informed decision-making is essential.
The proposals in the bill are based on the recommendations of a National Competition Policy review of the Credit (Finance Brokers) Act 1984. The review found that consumers continue to experience some risks in their dealings with finance brokers, and that these risks justify continued regulation of the finance broking industry. The main risks faced by consumers of finance broking services are: lack of broker independence where commission is paid by lenders, which may result in consumers entering into overpriced credit arrangements; consumer loss where the broker's commission is paid in advance and the credit is not subsequently obtained; the charging by brokers of excessive, undisclosed commissions or other fees; unethical conduct whereby consumers are persuaded to borrow larger amounts than needed or to include fraudulent information in credit applications; and difficulty in obtaining redress where the consumers have not been provided with a copy of their agreement with the broker.
Given these risks, the review concluded that the objectives of the Credit (Finance Brokers) Act remain valid. These objectives are: ensuring that consumers have sufficient information when dealing with finance brokers; reducing the costs of obtaining information from finance brokers and enforcing contracts against finance brokers; and protecting consumers from financial loss. The review recommended retention of the existing provisions of the Act, with some amendments to improve their effectiveness, and the enactment of a number of new provisions which will improve consumer protection. The review also recommended that, as 102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 finance brokers are now subject to the prohibitions on false, misleading and deceptive conduct contained in general fair trading and criminal legislation, it is not necessary to duplicate these prohibitions and their associated remedies in legislation aimed specifically at finance brokers.
In order to streamline legislation relating to finance brokers, the review recommended repeal of the Credit (Finance Brokers) Act and transfer of its provisions and the proposed new provisions to the Consumer Credit Administration Act, which already contains provisions governing discipline of finance brokers. The review supported continuation of the current disciplinary regime applying to finance brokers. This regime aims to prevent and deal with conduct which is unfair, dishonest or fraudulent or which breaches a contract or consumer credit legislation. If it is found that a finance broker has engaged in such conduct, the Commissioner for Fair Trading may make a range of orders, including requiring undertakings as to future conduct, requiring action to rectify the consequences of the conduct, and prohibiting a person from conducting business as a finance broker.
Contravention of a prohibition order can lead to a fine of up to $22,000, and consumers who contract with a person subject to a prohibition order are not liable to pay any amounts under the contract and may recover any amounts paid. The review concluded that replacement of this disciplinary system with a licensing or registration scheme could not provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the costs of creating a barrier to entry to the finance broking industry and the significant costs which a licensing scheme would impose on government and brokers, and which would subsequently be passed on to consumers. The bill's provisions fall into six broad categories: repeal of the Credit (Finance Brokers) Act 1984; definitions; disclosure requirements; commissions; records and third party fees; and consumer remedies.
I will now take the opportunity to outline some of the main provisions in the bill. The bill applies to finance broking where the credit to be obtained is covered by the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, that is, where the credit is predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes. The review noted that the recent Post Implementation Review of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code did not support extension of the code to small business consumers, and the review was not in favour of extending the coverage of finance broking legislation beyond that of the national credit regime. Small business consumers are, however, protected by the provisions of the Fair Trading Act which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations, and the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act.
The National Competition Policy review found that under the existing legislative provisions, there is some confusion over whether the finance broker's client is the consumer or the lender. The bill therefore provides that the broker's client is the consumer for whom credit is to be obtained, whether or not that person pays any commission. The review also found that, as the current Act does not clearly define commission, finance brokers may seek to obtain fees from consumers under other names, such as termination fees. The bill therefore defines commission to include any fees payable by the consumer to the finance broker in respect of finance broking, no matter what those fees are called.
I will now refer to disclosure requirements. The current Credit (Finance Brokers) Act provides that a finance broker must not accept commission from a consumer unless the appointment to act as a finance broker is in writing signed by the person to be charged the commission, and contains particulars of the amount of credit to be obtained, the term of the credit and the maximum amount of interest or other charges to be paid. The bill deals with new industry practices by providing that a finance broker must always provide a client with a written contract, whether or not the client is to be charged commission.
The bill also provides that the written and signed contract must be given to the client before finance broking commences, and that it must contain particulars of: the maximum amount of credit to be obtained; the term of the credit, if the credit is to be for a particular term; the periodic repayment amounts or repayment arrangements that the client is prepared to agree to; the maximum interest rate the client is prepared to pay; the date by which the finance broker is to have secured the consumer credit; the name and address of the finance broker, the Australian Company Number [ACN] if the finance broker is a company, and the name and address of the principals if the finance broker trades under a business name; the amount of commission payable by the client, if any is payable, or, if the amount of commission is not known, the method of calculating the commission, and an estimate of the amount of commission that will be payable if credit is provided on the terms specified; and when and how commission will be payable.
Further, the bill requires the finance broking contract to contain: a statement, in a form to be prescribed by the regulations, that the finance broker's recommendations will be drawn from a limited range of potential 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 103 lenders; a disclosure, if relevant and in terms to be prescribed by regulation, of the fact that a finance broker will obtain a financial or other benefit if credit is ultimately provided to the client; and any other matter that is prescribed.
Requiring the contract be completed and given to the consumer prior to the commencement of finance broking will ensure that the rights and obligations of each party are clear from the beginning. It will also address those situations where consumers experience difficulty in taking action against a finance broker because they do not have a copy of their agreement. The requirement that the contract set out the details of the credit to be obtained, including the maximum amount of credit, the term of the credit, the repayment amounts and the maximum interest rate the client is prepared to agree to, will help to ensure that the credit secured matches the consumer's requirements, assist the consumer in taking action against the broker and clarify when the broker is entitled to payment of commission.
Up-front disclosure of any commission to be paid by the consumer is essential to enable the consumer to make an informed choice about using the broker. The proposal will increase competition in the finance broking industry by helping consumers to decide which broker is offering the most competitive arrangement. Disclosure of the way commission is to be charged will also assist informed consumer decisions, and help to stamp out unfair practices such as the broker's commission being added to the amount borrowed without the consumer's prior consent. This practice results in increased costs for the consumer due to the additional interest payable on the higher loan amount.
Disclosure of the broker's financial relationship with lenders and the fact that the broker's recommendations will be drawn from a limited range of lenders are two of the most important requirements in the bill. The disclosures will alert consumers to the fact that brokers are not independent and their recommendations may be influenced by financial or other benefits. Many consumers unfamiliar with the credit marketplace assume that finding the best deal is part of the service offered by a finance broker, whereas, in fact, as some submissions to the review pointed out, brokers rarely recommend lenders who do not pay commissions, even if they offer a product superior to that recommended by the broker.
Alerting consumers to the financial relationships between lenders and brokers will help to ensure that consumers question brokers about the reasons for their recommendations, and scrutinise more closely the conditions of the credit product being recommended. The broad power to require the finance broking contract to disclose any other matter that may be prescribed will allow future changes to the matters which must be included in the contract. In particular, the power will enable a broker to be required to disclose whether the broker has paid a fee to any other person as payment for referring business to the broker.
Referral fees paid by brokers are an increasing feature of the finance broking industry. These fees may be paid to real estate agents or other persons as payment for referring business to a finance broker. The major consumer problem in relation to such fees is that consumers who are unaware of the fees may use a broker because of their trust in the person who refers them and on the assumption that a broker has been recommended on the basis of merit or integrity. The consumers may therefore be less vigilant in their dealings with the broker than if they were aware that the broker had paid a fee to secure the referral.
The existing Credit (Finance Brokers) Act prohibits a finance broker from demanding, receiving or accepting any commission from a consumer before securing the credit, and from demanding, receiving or accepting any commission in respect of credit which is for an amount less than the amount specified in the contract of appointment, at a rate of interest, or for a charge, greater than the rate or charge specified in the terms of the contract, or for a term less than the term specified in the contract. The bill retains the prohibition on accepting commission prior to securing credit, and expands the existing obligations on the broker by prohibiting the claiming or accepting of commission unless the credit matches the amount, term, repayment arrangements, and interest rate set out in the contract, and is secured within the time frame specified in the contract.
While providing this protection to consumers, the bill also operates fairly towards finance brokers. Although it requires the credit to be exactly on the terms requested in order for commission to be claimed, the bill allows for the broking contract to be varied if the variation is in writing and signed by both parties. Therefore, if a broker finds that credit can be obtained only on slightly different terms to those requested, a contract variation can preserve the broker's ability to claim commission. The requirement that the variation be in writing and signed by both parties ensures that the client has clearly consented to the variation and the new terms are clear to both parties. The bill also allows a broker who has secured the credit on the terms and within the time frame requested to claim commission even if the client does not proceed with the credit secured, provided the contract was not validly terminated before the credit was secured, and the contract expressly allows for commission to be claimed in these circumstances. 104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
The bill retains the current requirement that finance brokers make and keep records of transactions, but increases the time for which these records must be kept from three to seven years. This amendment acknowledges consumer advocates' concerns that consumers may require finance broker records to defend later debt recovery action by credit providers, and brings finance broker records into line with the records of other advisors such as solicitors.
In relation to the payment of fees due to third parties, the existing Act provides that valuation fees paid to a finance broker must be held in trust and any amount left over after payment of the fee be repaid to the consumer. The review found that a more effective method of preventing brokers from misusing valuation fees would be to require these fees to be paid in the form of a cheque or similar instrument made payable to the valuer. The bill implements this recommendation, and applies the same principle to credit application and establishment fees, which may also be accepted by finance brokers. During consultation on the bill, it was pointed out that finance brokers may sometimes be authorised by a credit provider to instruct the valuer, assess the credit application or establish the credit contract on the credit provider's behalf. Therefore, the bill allows a finance broker to accept a valuation, application or establishment fee made payable to the broker if the broker is authorised to undertake these functions on the lender's behalf.
The Credit (Finance Brokers) Act currently provides that a consumer can apply to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for a remedy against excessive commission. A court can also provide such a remedy if a finance broker takes legal action to recover commission which the court considers to be excessive. The bill retains these provisions, and goes further to provide for consumer remedies in the case of breach of contract, breach of any consumer credit legislation, and unfair, dishonest or fraudulent conduct by a finance broker.
On 28 March 2003 the Australian Securities and Investment Commission released a report on the finance broking industry prepared by the New South Wales Consumer Credit Legal Centre. The report recommended uniform national regulation of finance brokers and made a number of recommendations regarding the content of such regulation. While the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the regulation of financial planners and financial advisers under the Corporations Act, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Senator the Hon. Ian Campbell, has indicated that, as the regulation of credit has traditionally been a State responsibility, the Commonwealth does not wish to take on responsibility for finance brokers. While this bill will significantly improve the position of New South Wales consumers who use the services of finance brokers, the Government acknowledges that finance broking is a national issue.
In view of the Commonwealth Government's lack of interest in this area, the New South Wales Government will be taking a leading role in discussions with the other States and Territories regarding the possibility of a co-ordinated approach to the regulation of finance broking. As any agreement on a uniform approach is likely to take some time, the Government considers it important that the current bill proceed. This will mean that New South Wales consumers will not need to wait for inter-jurisdictional agreement before they receive appropriate protection in their dealings with finance brokers. I thank the finance broking industry and the consumer groups who have contributed to the development of this bill. The proposals in the bill represent a balanced regulatory approach which will protect consumers without imposing significant costs on finance brokers or interfering unreasonably in the conduct of their business. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Hodgkinson.
VALUERS BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [11.37 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will improve the efficiency and flexibility of the system for regulating valuers in New South Wales. The work of valuers involves assessing the value of property, especially in real property transactions where a purchase is being made with a loan from a financial institution. A valuer's work may include consideration of the location of a property, any planned developments in the area, and the condition of the property. A valuer may act as consultant to, and liaise with, solicitors, surveyors, town planners, architects, accountants, property developers and financiers. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 105
Valuers are currently regulated under the Valuers Registration Act 1975. This Act establishes an occupational licensing regime for valuers and provides for the Office of Fair Trading to register valuers who have completed an approved course of study and met prescribed practical experience requirements. The Act also contains disciplinary provisions that may be exercised against valuers who do not comply with appropriate standards of conduct. This bill retains the registration system for valuers, but streamlines the existing system so as to improve its efficiency and flexibility.
The proposals in the bill are based in part on the recommendations of a National Competition Policy review of the Valuers Registration Act 1975, and in part on issues which were raised following completion of the review. In retaining the existing registration system for valuers, the bill recognises the changes that have occurred in financial markets since the early 1980s. In particular, as more consumers seek to acquire investments to provide financial security and retirement income, and homes are increasingly used to secure credit for other purposes, the Australian Property Institute [API] has reported an increase in the number of individual consumers engaging valuers directly. This contrasts with past practice, when valuers were almost always engaged by third parties such as financial institutions and solicitors.
The API has reported that the proportion of direct consumer work is growing rapidly and valuation practices are increasingly seeking work from consumers. The API has indicated that individual consumers seek valuations in relation to a range of matters, such as property settlements after divorce, prenuptial agreements, entry into, and renewal of, leases, acquisition and resumption of property by governments, capital gains tax assessments, asset valuation for business entities, payment of stamp duty, purchase of real property, pre- purchase inspection of off-the-plan properties and purchases where debt funding is not required. In light of the increasing use of valuers by individual consumers, retention of a registration system is considered necessary. Such a system provides consumers with the protection of knowing that a valuer possesses the necessary qualifications to practise and has not been disqualified. The bill's provisions fall into three broad categories, namely, definitions, registration, and complaints, disciplinary action and enforcement.
I will now take the opportunity to outline some of the main provisions in the bill. The bill provides that a valuer is a person who values property for a fee or reward. Property is defined as land, including any estate or interest in land, an exclusive right to the separate occupation of land, a building or part of a building, an access licence under the Water Management Act, or any other property that is prescribed by the regulations as property for the purposes of the bill. This definition of valuation moves beyond that in the existing Valuers Registration Act by acknowledging that valuers may value property other than real property.
The change reflects changes in the industry which have seen valuers move into new practice areas. For example, as honourable members would be aware, legislative changes have been made to make water access rights tradeable. Accordingly, in response to a request during consultation, the bill explicitly recognises access rights as a property right. The bill prohibits a person from practising or advertising as a valuer unless the person is registered as a valuer. A person carrying out duties as a student valuer under the supervision of a registered valuer is not required to be registered. The bill also provides that a corporation must not practise or advertise as a valuer unless at least one director or employee is a registered valuer.
Furthermore, a corporation must not provide a valuation of any property unless the valuation is signed by a registered valuer. The requirements for registration as a valuer are that a person must be at least 18 years of age, be a fit and proper person to be registered, have the qualifications approved by the Commissioner of the Office of Fair Trading and not be a disqualified person. The bill differs from the current Valuers Registration Act in providing for the qualifications for practice as a valuer to be approved by the Commissioner for Fair Trading rather than prescribed by the Minister for Fair Trading. This will enable the required qualifications to be more readily amended in response to changing market circumstances.
The bill also provides that the Commissioner for Fair Trading may approve qualifications by reference to any one or more of the following: completion of a course of study, completion of a period of training in valuing property, attainment of a standard of competency in valuing property, or registration under the existing Valuers Registration Act or under a law of another Australian jurisdiction that is approved by the Minister for Fair Trading. This provision differs from the existing qualification requirements in allowing for registration on the basis of achievement of a standard of competency, as an alternative to completion of a course of study or a period of training.
The introduction of competency standards will bring flexibility to the qualification system by acknowledging that competency in valuation can be achieved through different pathways. The existing 106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 registration system provides for five categories of valuer, namely, an associate real estate valuer, a practising real estate valuer, a non-practising real estate valuer, an associate valuer of licensed premises and a valuer of licensed premises. The bill removes these categories and instead provides for only one category of registered valuer, whilst giving the Commissioner for Fair Trading power to impose conditions on registration which are appropriate to the particular circumstances of individual valuers.
The bill also provides that mandatory rules of conduct for valuers may be prescribed in the regulations. The bill provides an expanded list of grounds for disqualification from registration. The current Act provides that, in order to take action, the Commissioner for Fair Trading must be satisfied after inquiry that a registered real estate valuer has been convicted of a crime or offence or has been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect. By contrast, this bill states explicitly that a person is disqualified from registration as a valuer if the person does or does not do certain things. These grounds include, but are not limited to, having certain convictions, being an undischarged bankrupt, being a director or manager of a corporation that is subject to winding-up or for which a controller or administrator has been appointed, being mentally incapacitated, being disqualified from registration or licensing in another jurisdiction, failure to pay a monetary penalty payable under the Act or failure to comply with a direction given under the Act.
Another important consumer protection measure in the bill is the requirement that a valuer whose registration has been suspended, cancelled or made subject to condition notify his or her clients of this fact within three days. The bill also changes the current one-year registration system to a three-year system. This will lower costs and inconvenience for valuers and the Government. In keeping with existing practice, a register is to be kept detailing the particulars of registered valuers. This register will be available for public inspection. In order to provide for registration procedures which are consistent with other government licensing regimes, the bill states that the registration procedures set out in the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act are to apply to valuer registrations.
The bill streamlines the existing disciplinary process for valuers, allowing disciplinary matters to be dealt with by administrative means. This will be substantially more efficient and less costly than the existing judicial-style hearing. Appeals on disciplinary matters will be heard by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal rather than the Land and Environment Court. The grounds for disciplinary action in the bill and the processes for discipline and enforcement mirror those in the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. It is intended that this will reduce costs by establishing consistent processes for property industry professionals licensed by the Office of Fair Trading.
The bill includes expanded grounds for disciplinary action and greater options for disciplinary action, and introduces show-cause notice provisions. Such provisions require a person to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. Notices to show cause have been used effectively in other fair trading areas, such as home building, motor dealers and travel agents. In addition to the show-cause provision, notices may be published by the Commissioner for Fair Trading warning persons of particular risks involved in dealing with a specified registered valuer or another person in connection with the activities of valuers.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that this bill represents a balanced approach to the regulation of valuers in New South Wales, and will be to the benefit of both consumers and the valuation industry. The bill will retain the consumer protection advantages of a registration system, whilst ensuring that the system does not involve unnecessary expense or restriction of valuers' business practices. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Hodgkinson.
CONVEYANCERS LICENSING BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [11.49 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Conveyancers Licensing Bill repeals the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995 and replaces it with a new Act which improves consumer protection, allows conveyancers to incorporate, introduces "rules" for conveyancers, 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 107 clarifies and updates existing legislation and reforms the disciplinary scheme. In New South Wales, the provision of conveyancing services has developed as a highly competitive area of business over the past 10 years. In part this can be attributed to property market conditions and the volume of residential transactions that take place. But it is also the result of breaking the monopoly solicitors held on providing conveyancing services and freeing up the conveyancing market to allow open competition.
Licensing for conveyancers was first introduced in 1992. It was intended to increase competition in the provision of conveyancing services by allowing other qualified professionals apart from solicitors to undertake conveyancing work. It was considered that, as competition benefits consumers and the community generally by encouraging providers to deliver their services in the most effective and cost-efficient way, a separate licensing scheme for conveyancers would have this effect. However, it was found that the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992 was only partially able to expand consumer choice and break down the monopoly that solicitors held on conveyancing. Reforms were proposed that would permit licensed conveyancers to undertake a broader scope of work covering commercial, rural and residential transactions as well as personal property. The 1995 Act expanded the work of licensed conveyancers and transferred regulation of conveyancers to a body independent of both the legal profession and the conveyancing industry.
The pro-competitive changes to conveyancing regulation have brought a number of benefits to consumers. The benefits have accrued through improved market information, a wider choice of service providers and lower prices, without any drop in quality. Before the reforms the Australian Consumers Association had estimated the conveyancing monopoly cost New South Wales consumers $290 million a year. It was estimated that in 1990, the legal fees associated with a $125,000 house purchase and mortgage ranged from $1,100 to $1,550.
A recent survey of licensed conveyancers undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading indicates that, although the value of residential property in New South Wales has risen, the average cost of a residential conveyance has dropped considerably, now ranging between $400 and $1,000. The survey also indicated that the conveyancing costs associated with the sale or purchase of a small business have been reduced as a result of the pro-competitive reforms. Broadening the scope of work undertaken by licensed conveyancers has had a positive impact on this sector of the market. It is estimated that as time goes by licensed conveyancers will take up a greater market share and there will be further cost savings to consumers. There are currently 404 licensed conveyancers in New South Wales. Of the 404 licensees, 17 hold restricted licences that allow them to undertake residential work only and 387 are licensed to undertake the full scope of work including commercial and rural conveyancing. The industry has increased by more than 800 per cent since the introduction of the Conveyancers Licensing Act in 1995 when only 43 licensees held residential licences.
The proposed reforms contained in the bill are based on the recommendations of a National Competition Policy review of the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995. The review found that consumers experience risks in their dealings with conveyancers, and that these risks justify continued regulation of the conveyancer industry. The main risks faced by consumers of conveyancers' services are the level of competence of the conveyancers and the safety of moneys held in trust. Given these risks, the review concluded that the objectives of the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995 remain valid. These objectives are to increase competition in the provision of conveyancing services by allowing other qualified professionals apart from solicitors to undertake conveyancing work and to protect consumers of conveyancing services by providing that conveyancers must be licensed, accountable and meet certain standards of competence.
The basis for the current regulatory framework is the premise that consumers are, as a group, relatively ill-informed compared to conveyancers, partly because of infrequent transacting, and are vulnerable for that reason. The sale or purchase of property, whether for domestic or investment purposes, is a significant transaction for most people. It often involves a substantial financial and personal commitment, and usually occurs only infrequently in a person's lifetime. Therefore appropriate regulation can assist efficient transacting in the property marketplace. The review recommended retaining the current occupational licensing model as the regulatory option which best achieves the objectives of the Act. As part of the review process some aspects of the regulation of conveyancers were identified as requiring legislative reform.
I will now take the opportunity to outline some of the main changes proposed in the bill. Before I outline the proposals, I should mention that the bill retains the current boundaries for the legal work a conveyancer may undertake. Licensed conveyancers with an unrestricted licence may carry out a range of work including residential conveyancing, commercial property transfers, preparing and advising on mortgages, property transactions for small businesses and the sale of rural property. The existing provisions relating to the keeping of trust accounts, records, management and receivership have also been retained. 108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
The proposals in this bill fall into three broad categories: licensing requirements, general conduct of licensees, and discipline and enforcement. The bill retains the current requirements that to be granted a licence a person must be at least 18 years of age, fulfil certain qualification requirements, not be a disqualified person and contribute to the compensation fund established under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. Licensees are still required to be covered by professional indemnity insurance. Because of the nature of conveyancing work, demonstrating competence plays a fundamental role in the licensing requirements. Previously this has been achieved by setting educational and practical experience requirements. To keep abreast of changes to the national approach to training, competency standards will be introduced as part of the qualification criteria. Including competency standards as part of the qualification criteria provides the opportunity for a general review of current guidelines for educational and practical experience. The Office of Fair Trading will soon commence consultation to revise these guidelines.
The current Act limits the involvement of other professionals in conveyancing businesses in a number of ways. There are restrictions on engaging in multidisciplinary partnerships, the sharing of receipts and employing certain persons in a conveyancing business. The provisions disqualifying certain persons from becoming licensees have been amended to include persons barred from holding a licence in another jurisdiction and persons who are not fit and proper. The restriction on the category of persons who hold a solicitors or barristers practising certificate has been removed. The provisions restricting business relationships are intended to support the requirements in the Act for professional and ethical standards by ensuring a properly qualified person maintains control of the business. To provide conveyancers with freedom to choose the most appropriate business structure, the restriction on conveyancers incorporating has been removed. This may be particularly beneficial to small suburban firms and those located in country towns.
For a corporation to become licensed, at least one director must be a licensed conveyancer. Non- conveyancer directors will be subject to fit and proper checks and incorporation with a director who is licensed under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act will be prohibited. This will ensure that professional and ethical standards are adhered to and any possible conflict of interest between real estate agents and conveyancers will be avoided. The bill expands the current requirements relating to continuing professional development. The bill provides for the renewal of a licence on condition that licence holders undertake continuing professional development each year. Licensees, like many others in business, need a wide range of skills to competently perform their functions.
Equally, they need to keep abreast of changes and developments in their fields of competence. Continuing professional development recognises the changing nature of the marketplace and provides flexibility to educate conveyancers in identified areas of concern. Continuing professional development requirements will be based on identified emerging issues and persistent problem areas, and cover topics such as trust accounting, ethical issues, communication skills, electronic conveyancing and office management. Consultation will be carried out with industry and other interested parties to develop the requirements for continuing professional development. It is envisaged that guidelines will provide for a variety of ways for a person to be able to satisfy the requirements, for example, by attendance at courses and seminars or through multimedia channels such as video or the Internet.
The Government is conscious that a flexible approach should be adopted so that people, especially those in remote areas, can participate in continuing professional development without disrupting their business activities. Before moving on to the topic of conveyancer conduct I should point out that decisions of the commissioner with respect to the issue, renewal or restoration of licences or the imposition of conditions will continue to be reviewable by way of appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. As I indicated earlier, the reforms update and streamline requirements relating to the way conveyancers conduct their business. For most people the sale or purchase of their home represents the largest investment and financial transaction they will engage in.
Similarly, there may be far-reaching and weighty implications in the sale or purchase of a small business. An error in a conveyancing transaction can result in significant harm to the consumer. In most cases the error becomes apparent after the transaction has been completed. The purchaser is in possession of a property with a defect and there is no way of reversing the sale process, although the purchaser may have a remedy through the common law. To reduce the risk of error, the bill tightens the supervision and control of employees and clarifies the responsibilities of licensees-in-charge. Licensees-in-charge will be responsible for the actions of their employees and they will be prohibited from employing people who are disqualified from holding a licence or are otherwise considered not fit and proper. The bill also requires the reasonable attendance of the licensee at the place of business. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 109
To provide the industry with a clear guide to the standards expected by the public in respect of business dealings and ethical behaviour, the bill allows for rules of conduct to be prescribed. The rules of conduct will underpin the core elements of the legislation—levels of competency, professional indemnity insurance and continuing professional development. Rules could address matters such as disclosure of costs, providing information to clients about the conveyancing process, ownership of documents, conflict of interest and arrangements for settlement. Contravention of the rules can result in disciplinary action. Consultation will be undertaken with the industry and consumers to ensure the development of rules of conduct that provide an appropriate level of consumer protection. Under current arrangements, the obligation for conveyancers to disclose costs and the effect of non-disclosure are regulated under provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1987. These requirements have been brought across to the bill.
[Quorum formed.]
The bill also provides for the resolution of costs disputes through the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The tribunal replaces the Supreme Court as the forum for resolving costs disputes. Under the new procedure consumers or conveyancers may notify the tribunal about a costs dispute. The dispute will be assessed by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for the purpose of determining whether the matter is appropriate for resolution by an independent expert. An independent expert will be selected from a panel of experts approved by the chairperson of the tribunal. The intention is that the expert will quickly make contact with the parties with a view to prompt resolution of the dispute.
The independent expert will be required to prepare a written report on the dispute and provide it to the parties within a time limit specified by the tribunal. If the parties reach an agreement during an assessment by the independent expert, that agreement must be put in writing by the expert, signed by the parties and filed with the tribunal. If the dispute cannot be resolved through this early intervention dispute resolution system, a costs claim can be lodged with the tribunal in order to have the matter heard and determined.
I would now like to move on to the provisions dealing with discipline and enforcement. The review of the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995 found that complaint and disciplinary arrangements applying to conveyancers are unnecessarily complex. This is because provisions of both the Legal Profession Act and the Conveyancers Licensing Act come into play with regard to a particular dispute. The linking of the Conveyancers Licensing Act to part 10 of the Legal Profession Act and the distinct yet sometimes overlapping responsibilities of different agencies have resulted in an inefficient administrative structure with gaps in the regulatory framework. In addition, the links which exist between the licensing function and the investigation of unlicensed activity and the separation of responsibilities to different agencies create conflicting priorities, significant co- ordination issues, issues around jurisdiction and powers to investigate and gather evidence.
It was also found that the current disciplinary scheme is anti-competitive and does not provide competitive neutrality for all persons providing conveyancing services. Solicitors are subject to one disciplinary system administered under the Legal Profession Act 1987 while licensed conveyancers must comply with requirements of both the Legal Profession Act and the Conveyancers Licensing Act. The Government has responded to these inefficiencies and inequities by including a new disciplinary framework in the bill to provide a more balanced and fairer disciplinary scheme for licensed conveyancers. The disciplinary provisions of the bill allow the Commissioner for Fair Trading to investigate complaints, initiate show cause proceedings, suspend licences and issue penalty notices for some minor breaches of the Act.
The commissioner will be able to initiate disciplinary action through the issue of a notice to a licensed conveyancer to show cause as to why he or she should not be subject to disciplinary action. A person to whom a show cause notice has been issued will have at least 14 days to provide evidence or make a submission. Grounds for commencing disciplinary proceedings will include a breach of the legislation or Rules of Conduct, for example, a failure to account for money held on trust, or failure to comply with a condition of a licence or to properly supervise employees.
The bill provides the Commissioner for Fair Trading with a range of options for disciplinary action, depending on the circumstances. They include the issue of a caution or reprimand, a requirement to comply with an enforceable undertaking, the cancellation or suspension of a licence, the imposition of conditions on a person's practice, and the imposition of a monetary penalty of up to $11,000 for an individual or $22,000 for a partnership or corporation. When urgent action is needed to protect consumers from significant loss or harm, the bill enables the commissioner to issue, when public risk is immediate, a public warning alerting consumers to the risks of dealing with a particular person, and, in situations of serious risk, immediately suspend a licence. 110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
The bill enables the commissioner to appoint a manager to carry on the business of a conveyancer whose licence has been suspended or cancelled, so as to ensure that existing clients are not disadvantaged. The bill also provides for the Commissioner for Fair Trading to deal with those who sidestep licensing requirements and advertise or otherwise hold out to be a conveyancer without a licence. Consumers dealing with an unlicensed conveyancer may be exposed to considerable risk, and action needs to be taken quickly to stop this type of activity once it is identified. The bill provides the commissioner with the capacity to investigate and take action against unlicensed conveyancer trading. The model for the disciplinary scheme is based on administrative law principles that preserve consistency and certainty in decision making. There will be access to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for review of all disciplinary decisions.
The current Act requires the Office of Fair Trading to maintain a register containing licence details. The bill expands on this requirement by allowing for the making of regulations to prescribe details of disciplinary action to be included in the register. The regulations will enable the register to include details of outcomes of show cause proceedings, including licence suspension, the appointment of a manager or receiver, and the results of any prosecutions. The aim of the register is to provide as much information as possible to consumers to ensure that they use the services of appropriately licensed and competent persons. Another important aspect of consumer protection is the Compensation Fund established under the current Act.
The bill continues to provide for the fund, which protects consumers who suffer loss because of a conveyancer's failure to account for money received on a consumer's behalf. All licensees will continue to be required to contribute to the Compensation Fund. To support the new disciplinary regime, the bill sets maximum monetary penalties for all offences. For example, the maximum penalty for unlicensed trading has been set at $11,000. Trust account fraud will be an indictable offence with a maximum prison term of 10 years. These reforms to the disciplinary and enforcement regime will provide greater protection to the public by enabling a quicker, more flexible and cost-effective response to misconduct on the part of licensees.
Under the proposed model, levels of professionalism and standards of honesty, competence and ethics would be upheld through a combination of entry requirements, continuing professional development, prescribed rules and a more efficient and effective complaint handling and disciplinary scheme. To assist in the smooth implementation of the reforms, I will ensure that the Office of Fair Trading liaises with the Australian Institute of Conveyancers on the relevant aspects of the reforms. Consumers of conveyancers' services have a right to expect professional, honest and ethical behaviour from conveyancers, and that is what is intended by this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Hodgkinson.
RURAL LANDS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [12.16 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Rural Lands Protection Act 1998, which commenced in 2001, replaced an Act of the same name that was passed in 1989. The new Act introduced some significant changes in the operation of the Rural Lands Protection Board system. One of the main changes is the creation of a statutory body, the State Council, which provides the 48 rural lands protection boards across the State with centralised services and representation at all levels of government. In September last year the first general election of directors of the 48 rural lands protection boards was held under the new Act. Changes in the election process were implemented to gain a greater representation amongst board directors of the different cross-sections of board ratepayers. In particular, New South Wales Agriculture and the Department of Women worked together to encourage women to stand for election to the boards, by mailing out information and conducting a media campaign.
Each board consists of eight directors, except for the Central Tablelands board, which has nine. Under the former Rural Lands Protection Act 1989, the person who lodged the annual land and stock return was the person who was entitled to be nominated to stand for election as a director. Historically, it has usually been the male in a family unit who has lodged the annual return, and therefore a predominance of males have stood for 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 111 election as directors of rural lands protection boards. In addition, under the old Act, to qualify to stand for election as a director, the person had to reside in the district. This disadvantaged many owners of land who resided elsewhere.
The new Act gives each holding in a board district two votes, recognising that many family farms are held jointly by spouses or business partners. Furthermore, the automatic enrolment of the person who lodges the annual return of land and stock was abolished. In addition, it is now only necessary that the person standing for election as a director be an occupier or owner of rateable land within the relevant electoral division of the board's district, rather than a resident. Attention is being paid to the needs of minimum ratepayers. These persons are holders of land that consists of the smallest area or carrying capacity to which the rating provisions apply.
They were encouraged to stand for election as directors, and their concerns regarding the services they receive from boards will be addressed through a national competition policy review of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 . The newly elected directors took office in their respective rural lands protection boards for four-year terms commencing on 1 October 2002. A record number of women were elected, increasing the number of female directors across the State to 14 per cent, which is a significant increase from the results of the previous general election of directors held in 1997, when female directors represented only 6 per cent of the total number of directors.
In addition, the number of persons who are minimum ratepayers who were elected as board directors has increased. Ten persons who pay only the minimum rate were elected as directors of boards in the coastal area of the State. This is an important improvement as 73 per cent of the ratepayers of coastal boards pay only the minimum rate. Subdivision of agricultural land is a growing trend, particularly around the larger towns and cities of the coastal region. This is creating larger numbers of minimum ratepayers who have an interest in board issues such as feral animal control and animal health.
Another feature of the bill will enable the State Council to conduct postal ballots of boards for issues that need urgent resolution between annual conferences of boards. The State Council is responsible for the implementation by the boards of the general policies for the protection of rural lands and the operation of boards that are determined from time to time at State conferences. An annual State conference of boards takes place in June. All the boards are represented and can vote on resolutions moved at the conference. The purpose of the conference is to determine general policies to be implemented by boards and to determine primary policies to guide the State Council in carrying out its functions.
The State conference also must determine the annual budget of the State Council. The State Council must then operate for the following 12 months to implement these resolutions. However, if an urgent matter arises or if the State Council needs clarification or additional guidance regarding a resolution, at present there is no mechanism by which it can convene an urgent meeting of the State conference. The bill provides that the State Council may conduct a postal ballot of boards to resolve urgent issues.
Another issue of concern to boards is their power to recover outstanding rates left owing by an outgoing tenant or owner of land. The Act must clearly state that the current owner always remains liable for the rates left owing by an outgoing owner or tenant. Any person is entitled to apply under the Act to a board for a certificate that sets out the amount of any outstanding rates, charges or other amounts owing on a particular parcel of land. This means that an incoming owner, or an owner whose tenant is about to vacate the land, can easily find out whether any charges are owing to the board and can negotiate with the outgoing tenant or vendor of the land for the settlement of the outstanding amount. Generally, vendors and purchasers of land, and landlords and tenants have access to good information about each other and therefore may have a better opportunity than a board to enforce outstanding debts.
The Act also creates a strong incentive for outgoing owners and occupiers to settle debts relating to the land. Section 68 maintains the right of an owner or occupier who pays the rates left owing by someone else to recover the amount from that person. This provision mirrors the law under the Local Government Act with respect to rates owing at the time that a vendor of land sells to the purchaser. This bill will also allow flexibility to boards in setting fees for the use of travelling stock reserves and public roads for grazing and walking stock. The numbers of stock using travelling stock reserves and public roads has increased significantly since the onset of the drought. This has focused attention on this valuable Crown land and its importance for emergency grazing and movement of stock in times of drought and other natural disasters. 112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
It has also highlighted the environmental value of travelling stock reserves that have been efficiently managed by rural lands protection boards for the past 120 years. The Act requires that a board must charge a drover the exact fee set by the regulation for a permit to use a travelling stock reserve or public road. The proposed amendment will enable the boards to set a fee that is lower than the maximum amount set in the regulation. A board will not be able to arbitrarily set these lower amounts. The fees must be based on classifications relating to situations that apply, or to the types of travelling stock reserves being grazed. For example, a different fee could apply to all travelling stock reserves within a particular division of the board's district, or to the grazing of stock in good seasons when traditional use of the reserves is low.
The fees must be displayed in a conspicuous place in the board's office. The quality of feed available on roadsides and travelling stock reserves will vary greatly depending on circumstances such as the amount of previous grazing on this land or the weather conditions. Boards may therefore want to vary the fees they charge in accordance with the conditions. The bill also clarifies the power of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to recover money from boards for work undertaken to eradicate insects such as plague locusts from the land by the Australian Plague Locust Commission. The Australian Plague Locust Commission has been extraordinarily effective in controlling locust plagues since its establishment in 1974.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries pays an annual contribution to this commission to support its work. The Minister, under section 174 of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998, can recoup from the boards a contribution to the cost of any action taken by the Minister in eradicating insect pests. It is clear that insect pests such as plague locusts can impact on vast areas of land in a short time, destroying crops and pasture and native vegetation in its wake. The swift eradication of a plague in one board's district is of great benefit to all of the boards into whose district the plague may have otherwise travelled. It is therefore equitable that all boards whose district may play host to such insects should contribute to the cost of any eradication procedures carried out in the State. The proposed amendment to section 174 will make it clear that the Minister can recover the eradication costs for action taken in a board district within the State from any or all of the other boards.
Under section 207 of the Act, all proceeds of penalties payable under penalty notices imposed for offences committed under the Act are payable to the board in whose district the offence took place. Where police officers issue penalty notices under the Act, it is difficult for them to easily ascertain in which of the 48 rural lands protection board districts the offence has occurred. In addition, the Infringement Processing Bureau requires a separate code to be written onto a penalty notice to designate the board district to which payment of the proceeds must be made. This adds to the complexity of the administrative process.
Rather than have 48 different Infringement Processing Bureau codes, it is proposed that any penalty payable under a penalty notice issued by a police officer under the Act is to be paid to the State Council. Once the State Council receives the penalty notice proceeds, it is to be distributed across all boards by reducing the amount that each board must pay annually to the State Council. The State Council is to calculate the total amount it receives from the proceeds of all penalties paid from penalty notices issued by the police under the Rural Lands Protection Act over the year. The benefit that each board receives by way of a reduction to its annual contribution to the State Council is to be calculated on the same basis that its contribution to the State Council's budget is calculated. This will ensure an equitable distribution of the benefit from these penalties across the State.
Finally, the bill makes certain amendments to the election process, concerning information to be contained on the elector's roll, the appointment of persons to fill casual vacancies that occur during any postponement of a general election and the removal of a requirement that the authorised officer of a board must choose persons to be enrolled for a holding where the ratepayers for that holding have failed to make the election themselves. These amendments are designed to assist the boards to run more efficiently and thereby provide a better service for their ratepayers in the management of travelling stock reserves and stock watering places, eradication of vertebrate and insect pests and the provision of animal health services.
I note that the system of 48 rural lands protection boards, situated as they are across the State, provides a vital animal disease surveillance role. This is important in the maintenance of Australia's livestock export markets. I note that to assist in the efficiency of their operations the Government has recently committed $3.5 million over three years to upgrade the information technology systems used by the boards. This will assist them with their efficiency in recording, reporting and communication, with consequent savings to ratepayers as well as the wider community.
The value of their computer system has already been highlighted by the processing of drought claims, where 15,579 claims from 5,072 ratepayers have already been paid out, providing $16.1 million into the 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 113 drought-stricken community as at 24 April. With regard to the current drought, the boards have been instrumental in expediting the exceptional circumstance application process. Exceptional circumstances are declared on board districts in New South Wales. So far during the current drought, all board districts have applied to the Commonwealth for exceptional circumstances assistance.
Once these declarations are made, primary producers within those districts are eligible to apply for income support from Centrelink and business support from the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority under the program. To date, 69.7 per cent of New South Wales has been declared for exceptional circumstances assistance measures and a further 27.8 per cent of the State's area has applications for such a declaration pending. It is evident that although some parts of coastal and north-eastern New South Wales have received good rainfall, the drought is far from over, with critical conditions prevailing in the south and west of the State. The adverse effects of the drought will be felt for many years to come by householders, rural communities and the economy. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr George.
APPROPRIATION (BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [12.32 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The practice of seeking approval for supplementary appropriations to cover payments not provided for in the annual Appropriation Act has now become entrenched. This Government, in presenting further appropriation bills, has sought as far as possible to ensure the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise anticipated additional funding requirements prior to incurring expenditures . However, it is not always possible to seek Parliament's authority in advance for pressing expenditure needs and the Parliament has previously established procedures to provide for this eventuality.
Each year Parliament makes an advance available to the Treasurer to meet unforeseen expenditures. In addition, section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 enables the Governor to approve of payments to cater for the exigencies of the Government in anticipation of appropriations by Parliament. The introduction of the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2003 in this session enables the Government to: account to the Parliament on how the advance to the Treasurer has been applied for recurrent and capital expenditure; seek an adjustment of the advance prior to the end of the financial year; seek appropriation to cover expenditure approved under section 22 before year end; and seek additional appropriations for payments which are intended to be made in the current financial year, and in respect of which no provision was made in the annual appropriation bill.
The Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2003, in respect of the 2002-03 financial year seeks: appropriations of $286.267 million in adjustment of the advance to the Treasurer; $845.273 million for services approved by the Governor under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983; and additional appropriations of $425 million. The appropriation required for the Treasurer's Advance is detailed in schedule 1 annexed to this bill, along with a full account of how the advance has been applied this year. The Treasurer's Advance payments in 2002-03 include: $50 million for metropolitan rail track maintenance; $27.699 million for per capita grants to non-government schools and school cleaning contracts; $12.768 million for drought assistance measures to assist farmers; $11.763 million for an additional 100 case workers at the Department of Community Services; $7.25 million for eradicating fire ants; and $4.4 million for Operation Streetsafe—a program aimed at reducing street crime.
The additional appropriation required under Section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 relates to the provision of funds to meet certain expenditures required by the exigencies of Government. This amount includes: an appropriation required to fund an additional liability for the Treasury Managed Fund of $519 million. Due to a change of accounting policy, the Treasury Managed Fund is required to account for public liability claims on a "claims incurred" basis as opposed to a "claims made" basis. Therefore, the funding is required to provide for the additional liabilities so the Government can continue with its objective of fully funding the Treasury Managed Fund. 114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Appropriations are required to fund the costs of natural disasters, including $101.5 million for widespread bushfires, which have swept significant areas of the State. This sum is in addition to the $16 million allocated for natural disasters in the 2002-03 budget, and makes the total cost of fighting bushfires this year $117.5 million. A further appropriation is required for the across-the-board increase of 6 per cent for nurses under the Public Hospital Nurses Award of $57.5 million. An additional appropriation of $425 million is required: to maintain continued full funding of the Treasury Managed Fund Insurance Scheme of $305 million due to recent negative investment returns resulting from weaker equity markets; and to retire debt amounting to $120 million.
The additional funding of $305 million provided to the Treasury Managed Fund will have no budget impact as the proposed grant is from the Crown Finance Entity to the Insurance Ministerial Corporation, both of these organisations being general government agencies. The bill also seeks appropriations to adjust certain payments made during the 2001-2002 financial year either from that year's advance to the Treasurer, or approved in that financial year by the Governor under Section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act.
Additional funding in 2001-02 was provided for the retirement of debt, the First Home Owners Grant Scheme and a contribution to the Treasury Managed Fund. However, the State still achieved a budget surplus for the year ended 30 June 2002 of $495 million. This was $127 million higher than the 2001-02 budget estimate of $368 million. Also the State's net debt as a per cent of gross State product was reduced from 7.7 per cent to 6.2 per cent compared to the previous year. Each of the payments made in 2001-02 has been included in the audited financial statements of the relevant agencies for that year.
Section 11 of the bill is new this year. It is the result of the recent government restructure following the State election. The section validates interim payments by newly restructured government agencies pending the Treasurer making a determination to transfer 2002-03 budget appropriations from abolished agencies to the new agencies. Given that administrative arrangements within restructured agencies will not be completely in place until early August, some financial information for these agencies cannot be provided in the budget, which will be delivered on Tuesday 24 June.
Overall budgets for the agencies will be available on budget day, but the detailed program statements usually found in Budget Paper No. 3 will not be published until 26 August. This will affect 12 of the 75 budget dependent agencies. They are: the departments of Urban and Transport Planning, Sustainable Natural Resources, Lands, Commerce, Sport and Recreation, and State and Regional Development; the Treasury; the Environment Protection Authority; the National Parks and Wildlife Service; the Transport Co-ordination Authority; the Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator; and the Ministry for Energy and Utilities.
As a result, budget estimates committees will commence on 28 August. This arrangement will give members an opportunity to read and analyse this further information before questioning Ministers and departmental staff. The practice of introducing further appropriation bills has enhanced accountability for the expenditure of public moneys from the Consolidated Fund. It is further evidence of the Government's commitment to transparent and full financial reporting to the Parliament and the community. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Humpherson.
[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Andrews) left the chair at 12.40 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION
Mr SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 days after assent as at 30 April 2003.
PETITIONS
Lower Macleay High School
Petition requesting commencement of planning for a new high school to meet the educational needs of the Lower Macleay district, received from Mr Stoner. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 115
Lake Burrinjuck Water Level
Petition asking that the Department of Land and Water Conservation be instructed to maintain the level of water in Lake Burrinjuck at a minimum of 45 per cent, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Freedom of Religion
Petition praying that the House retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti- Discrimination Act, received from Mr Kerr, Mr Lynch and Ms Saliba.
Sutherland Shire Draft Local Environmental Plan 2003
Petition praying that Sutherland Shire Draft Local Environmental Plan 2003 be rejected, received from Mr Kerr.
Hoxton Park Road Widening
Petition praying that land vacated by the widening of Hoxton Park Road, Liverpool, be used as a passive recreational area, and that an overhead pedestrian bridge be constructed, received from Mr Lynch.
Giant Parramatta Grass
Petition requesting favourable review of funding for control of Giant Parramatta Grass, received from Mr Stoner.
Container Deposit Legislation
Petition requesting introduction of container deposit legislation and implementation of a refundable deposit recommendation, received from Mr McGrane.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Reordering of General Business
Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [2.30 p.m.]: I move:
That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Condemnation of the Government] have precedence on Thursday 1 May 2003.
It is urgent that the House debate tomorrow the alarming culture of cover-up by the Carr Government that has been exposed since its re-election five weeks ago. In that period four successive cover-ups perpetrated by the Government in the run-up to the election have been exposed. The most outrageous of those was a decision by the Government not to close the Menangle bridge. That decision put the lives of commuters directly at risk. For 22 days in March the Government refused to follow the expert advice of Professor West of the University of Wollongong given directly to the departments under the control of the failed Minister for Transport, the sacked Minister for Transport, Carl Scully.
That advice was clear: the Menangle rail bridge was so unsafe that it should be closed. But the Government, off the back of Waterfall, Glenbrook, and what was clearly an embarrassing record of the former Minister for Transport—it was so embarrassing he was sacked from that portfolio after the election—chose to ignore that advice and, instead, put the lives of ordinary citizens at risk. The Government stands condemned for doing so. The Government's culture of cover-up will damn it in years to come. I said before the election that the Government would do anything to get re-elected, and it did. What did it do? It put at risk the lives of rail commuters—
Mr Scully: Point of order: The Government would be delighted to debate this nonsense put up by the Opposition today. You are the sacked Leader of the Opposition; we will debate you tomorrow.
Mr BROGDEN: I note the Government has agreed to debate the motion, and so it should because we will also be debating Millennium trains. When it comes to Illennium trains— 116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr O'Farrell: He has three minutes.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Government has agreed to debate the motion.
Mr O'Farrell: Point of order. We know that during the election campaign the Premier claimed credit for the reading recovery program—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Motion agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
WATERFALL RAIL ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Could he outline what compensation has been paid to date to victims of the Waterfall train accident and what compensation has been paid to families of passengers who were killed in the accident?
Mr CARR: I am not aware of what compensation has been paid to victims of the Waterfall accident. I will seek advice and report to the House.
Mr BROGDEN: I ask a supplementary question. Bearing in mind that the Premier is not aware of what compensation has been paid to the victims or families of the Waterfall accident, how does the Government justify paying $350,000 to the sacked head of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, John Cowling, when he ran an organisation described by the Minister for Transport Services as "not able to account [for] the way taxpayers' money is spent" and whose internal management processes have now been referred to the ICAC?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question.
ALCOHOL SUMMIT
Ms JUDGE: My question without notice is to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's plans for an Alcohol Summit?
Mr CARR: Didn't the honourable member for Strathfield do well in the recent campaign! The once- marginal seat of Strathfield now has a Labor margin of close to 16 per cent. Not a bad status quo result at all in a seat that the Liberals once held and regarded as their own. The honourable member gave an excellent inaugural speech last night and I welcome her first question in this Chamber.
I announced the Alcohol Summit during my policy speech on 9 March. Health professionals including Professor Ron Penny and Professor Ian Webster have welcomed it. They have said, in effect: we need this summit, we need a debate about the impact of alcohol on the community. The Commissioner of Police, Ken Moroney, has welcomed the initiative. He said alcohol is a factor in around 70 per cent of incidents to which police are called. Today I will provide members with a preliminary paper prepared by the Office of Drug Policy setting out the facts and policy issues. It includes these statistics: 3,300 deaths Australiawide are caused by alcohol; 72,000 hospital admissions per year are due to high-risk drinking; one-third of all driver and pedestrian deaths are alcohol-related; 34 per cent of falls and drownings, 12 per cent of suicides, 40 per cent of domestic violence incidents and 16 per cent of child abuse cases are alcohol-related.
It is no wonder that a comprehensive study on the cost of alcohol abuse puts it at $7.5 billion. But, even more important, the study said that 60 per cent of these costs are preventable. Let us not forget that while 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 117 alcohol causes harm, it also plays a significant cultural and economic role in our society. We use it to celebrate, to socialise and to mark significant occasions. Hotels and clubs are traditional meeting places, particularly in rural New South Wales. As a report prepared for the National Alcohol Strategy stated:
Drinking alcohol is intrinsic to Australian culture and the activity is seen as normal, sociable and expected.
Research shows that low alcohol consumption is in fact beneficial to health. So we have on the one hand a legal product with health, social and economic benefits which, when misused, can lead to illness, misery and premature death. The Alcohol Summit will be organised along similar lines to the Drug Summit with expert speakers, working groups and visits to community facilities. The focus will be on evidence-based solutions. It will be held from 26 to 29 August in the Legislative Council Chamber.
I am pleased to announce today the summit will be chaired by two people eminently qualified for the task: Dr Neal Blewett, a former Federal Minister for Health and former member of the executive board of the World Health Organisation who is currently a visiting professor in the faculty of medicine at Sydney university, and Ms Kerry Chikarovski, a former New South Wales Opposition leader, a former New South Wales Government Minister and a patron and supporter of many community organisations, charities and causes. Anyone who saw her on election night will agree she is a very good communicator who used the opportunity to make some pertinent points—and she is a good singer! Both Dr Blewett and Ms Chikarovski are held in high esteem by members of this House and I am confident they will carry out the duty of chairing the summit with skill and deftness.
In recognition of two groups within the community particularly affected by alcohol, specific strategies will be developed to engage young people and to engage members of the Aboriginal community. Alcohol plays a significant role in adolescent culture. Getting drunk can be seen as a badge of being an adult: drinking as a rite of passage. While most young people survive this journey, many are hurt along the way. That is why on the day prior to the Alcohol Summit, Monday 25 August, we will set aside time for discussion with young people. In fact, they will have their own forum. I have asked the Commissioner for Children and Young People to make the necessary arrangements.
In relation to indigenous people, the research shows that overall, Aboriginal people are, in fact, less likely to drink alcohol. However, those who do drink consume alcohol in higher quantities than the general population. To ensure that the views of Aboriginal communities are properly represented, I have asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to oversee a special indigenous community engagement strategy that will have a number of consultations in the months leading up to the summit. The Government intends the Alcohol Summit to be a significant exercise in policy making. The Drug Summit is a model for the way we are approaching it. I ask all members to approach it in a bipartisan spirit and to commit ourselves to working with the community— the youth community and the indigenous community in particular—and engaging the experts to lead the community with us to make this as fruitful an exercise in policy making as was the Drug Summit in 1999.
RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERMINATION PAYMENT
Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. How does he justify paying $355,000 to the sacked head of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, John Cowling, when he ran an organisation described by the Government's own transport services Minister, Michael Costa, as "not able to account [for] the way taxpayers' money is spent" and whose internal management processes have now been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption by both the Government and the Opposition?
Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition made a reference at the outset of the discussion today to deception. I want the House to consider deception and how it played a role in the State election campaign. Here is a priceless example for collectors of political hypocrisy. The Leader of the Opposition waited until the Thursday before polling day to say that he would not proceed with the creation of 700 child protection worker positions at the Department of Community Services over the next four years. It was not a matter of saying in his policy speech a week before polling day, "Here are the commitments we are making as an Opposition and this is the bold decision we make to pay for it." There was none of that at all. They hoped that it would escape the notice of the public.
Mr Brogden: Point of order: My question was clearly related to the Government's decision to pay a termination payout of $350,000 to the failed head of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. 118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr CARR: You have got to cop it sweet because you did not win the election, partly because of a lack of authenticity in your commitments. That is one example. The second example is about rail. Talk about deception! The Leader of the Opposition stood up in January at the start of the election campaign—
Mr Page: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I quote directly from the Premier's remarks yesterday in this House when he said:
[If I am] straying from a strict sense of relevancy on a matter before the House that I am addressing, I would expect to be corrected by you.
This is a unique opportunity for you to set some higher standards in this place. Yesterday the Premier said that he wanted those standards and you also said you wanted those standards. Here is your opportunity.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.
Mr CARR: The facts in the Cowling matter speak for themselves. His contract provided for a 12- month salary payment on termination. By the way, compared to what the Greiner Government did in relation to payouts to senior executive service officers, we have got this absolutely under control. We provided for a 12- month salary payment on termination. His annual salary was $353,500. The terms of his contract, as provided for under the corporatisation model introduced by the former Coalition Government, were determined by the board of Rail Infrastructure Corporation.
Let us talk for a moment about deception. The Leader of the Opposition promised at the start of the election campaign a boost in funding of $120 million for rail maintenance over three years. The Thursday before polling day it was dropped from the election promises bowled out by KPMG. Only a month after making the promises he dropped it from the list of commitments that had been bowled up to KPMG. It was dropped; it was dumped. None of the funding promised in January was there in the commitments he put to the people that were ticked off by KPMG days before the election. That should be added to the deceit over DOCS: informing the public only 1½ days before it went to vote that the Coalition would not proceed with the appointment of child protection workers. There was deception on DOCS workers and deception on rail funding. The Leader of the Opposition should be the last person to attempt to raise the matter of deception in this House. No-one has put it better than Graham Morris, the former national director of the Liberal Party—
Mr O'Farrell: Federal director.
Mr CARR: The Federal director. I am glad the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reminded me. His authority is nationwide; he has seen the Liberals in every jurisdiction. When he was asked to explain their poor performance in State elections, in respect of New South Wales he said this:
I think at the moment in State Parliament the Libs have got the most boring batch of boofheads you've ever seen.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MEDICARE POLICY
Mr PRICE: My question without notice is to the Premier. What is the Government's response to community concerns about the Federal Government's announcements relating to Medicare and related health matters?
Mr CARR: I regret to say that in Maitland we had another boring, tedious status quo result. In 1999 when Kerry Chikarovski was Leader of the Opposition Labor had a majority in Maitland of 1 per cent. Then there were big smiles because of the new young leader, yet Labor now has a majority in Maitland of 8.9 per cent. That is the status quo! Sadly, there is no status quo when it comes to health insurance under the brutal Howard attack. John Howard said in 1987 that he would love to go back to the pre-Medicare days. That is where he is taking us. He wants to create a two-tiered health system. He wants to means test Medicare. That means seven million Australians with health care cards, like single people without children who earn up to $15,000 a year or couples with one child earning under $28,000 a year, might get bulk billing.
But what about the other 13 million? What about ordinary working families? Honourable members should remember that average earnings are around $46,000 a year. Those families earn too much to qualify for a health care card but they are still doing it tough. They do not get government benefits and they can ill afford a 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 119
$20 or $25 slug each time one of their kids get sick. The Howard plan will shift $1.2 billion in health costs from the Commonwealth budget on to families. It is nothing less than a frontal assault on middle Australia, on families like the Wynnes, who live in Blacktown. They survive on a single income of around $60,000 a year. Mr Wynne is a schoolteacher and Mrs Wynne is a full-time carer for her children. She says that in an average year she would visit the local general practitioner 12 to 15 times, often with three children requiring a consultation. That is up to 40 GP consultations each year. If each of those consultations now requires a $20 co-payment, the Wynne family will be hit with $800 every year. Members opposite are silent. Do they support what John Howard is doing?
Mr O'Farrell: It's a Federal issue.
Mr CARR: Members opposite cannot comment on a Federal issue. The Wynne family used to have private health insurance but gave it away seven years ago when Mrs Wynne stopped working to have her first child. The Wynne's are not extravagant spenders, but the Prime Minister wants to hit this family with an extra $800 a year. It gets worse than that. The gap payments faced by them will not be capped; doctors will be free to charge what they like.
Mr O'Farrell: Always have been.
Mr CARR: The new Deputy Leader of the Opposition is more active these days. He has never been leaner or fitter. He is in training—jogging, weights, pilates. I have counted eight different subjects—all of them outside his shadow portfolio—on which he has spoken in the past five days. What is going on? Where is the honourable member for Gosford? Members opposite are masters of distraction. Let us return to the main subject. As the President of the Doctors Reform society, Dr Tim Woodruff, said yesterday, "$100 for a GP visit is where we are headed". Last year alone the cost of gap payments rose by 11 per cent. The Prime Minister has a proposal on the table to insure for the gap but it will only cut in once a person has outlaid $1,000 in a 12-month period, plus insurance premiums. So it is a con.
Let us look at the regional effect of what is being done. In Western Sydney, 89 per cent of doctors in the Federal electorate of Lindsay and 92 per cent of doctors in Parramatta still bulk-bill. The vast majority of doctors are still bulk-billing. However, the Prime Minister's new scheme completely robs these doctors of any incentive to bulk-bill average Australian families. And these bulk-billing rates will plummet: The best estimate is that 1.9 million people in Western Sydney will lose access to bulk-billing. In Sydney's greater west 1.9 million people stand to lose access to bulk-billing. We know the situation in country areas. In country towns where there is no bulk-billing the demand on hospital emergency departments is 60 per cent higher than the demand on emergency departments where bulk-billing is available and doctors are providing it.
Mr Tink: Send them to Kim.
Mr CARR: What is the honourable member saying? I can only quote Graham Morris—the Liberal Party says it best—a bunch boofheads. In the Federal electorate of Farrer only 42 per cent of doctors bulk-bill; in New England, 47 per cent; and in Eden-Monaro, a meagre 38 per cent. Our new colleague did well in the seat of Monaro. Is that a status quo result? As the honourable member for Monaro said in his inaugural speech last night, the area has one of the lowest rates of bulk-billing in Australia. In Broken Hill, according to the local member—by the way, I note from reference to the pendulum that the majority of the honourable member for Murray-Darling sprang up from 4.2 per cent to 6.7 per cent, another status quo result—the choice is that either people do not go to the doctor or they go to a hospital emergency department. That is the choice for many people.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr CARR: I want to put forward three practical, realistic alternatives to the Prime Minister's package. First, the Commonwealth package is worth $917 million. All it offers doctors in our capital cities is a meagre $1 increase in the Medicare schedule fee, but only when they bill health concession card holders. With nearly $1 billion in the kitty, the Commonwealth can afford a decent rise in the schedule fee. That is my first proposal.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Baulkham Hills and the honourable member for Lane Cove will cease their discussion.
Mr CARR: That could be as high as $10, a 40 per cent increase on the current fee of $25.05. Indeed, one of the architects of Medicare, Professor John Deeble, has pointed out that even a general increase of $6 per visit would give the average full-time, bulk-billing general practitioner a net income rise of about 36 per cent. 120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
That is a substantial rise. Second, the Commonwealth could break down the strict separation between hospital and general practitioner services. For example, the Commonwealth could guarantee the provision of bulk-billing for general practitioner services in or near emergency departments in our hospitals. That would help to take the pressure off our emergency departments. Third, the Commonwealth could consider allowing the States and Territories to bulk-bill under Medicare for general practitioner-type patients who come to emergency departments when there is no alternative, such as when general practitioners are not open on weekends or after hours. I put these constructive proposals on the table. The bottom line of these so-called reforms, which the Opposition will not support—we have not heard one word of support from members opposite about what Howard is doing—
[Interruption]
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is being very vocal again. The fact is that 13 million Australians could be stripped of any chance of being bulk-billed. Doctors will get a trifling increase in the Medicare rebate, $1.2 billion in health costs are to be shifted from the Commonwealth budget on to families, and State and Territory emergency departments will pick up the tab as people shy away from using their general practitioners. Medibank Private and Medicare were monumental achievements in public policy—humane, civilising achievements.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove will cease his audible conversation.
Mr CARR: The Prime Minister's mean, shrivelled package is precisely the opposite. It is a monumental lost opportunity, something that a Labor government cannot and will not support.
RAIL BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
Mr STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of the Government's plans announced today to repair dangerous rail bridges at Menangle, Wagga Wagga and Bathurst, and to have consultants investigate bridges at Tamworth, Woolbrook, Dubbo, Wellington, Joppa Junction, Albury and Cowra, what action will the Premier take in relation to the scores of other unsafe and speed-restricted rail bridges across country New South Wales, many of which are considered irreparable?
Mr CARR: A great deal more action than the Opposition would have taken if it had been elevated to government. After promising to boost rail maintenance, the Opposition, in its final election policy statement, removed that financial commitment. It is great to be asked a question by the new Leader of the National Party. He is the fourth National Party leader in 10 years. As the Sydney Morning Herald said, "His election will be met with bemusement across much of rural New South Wales." That response is unlikely to be dispelled by his question today, his first question in this House in his new role. I refer the honourable member to the comprehensive statement on this matter made by the Minister for Transport Services today.
HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS
Mr ASHTON: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on hospital waiting lists and related matters?
Mr IEMMA: One of the best decisions of our last term of government was to put hospital waiting lists on the Internet. Anyone in the world could look them up—simple and transparent. They have to be accurate too. That is why in January this year, when a Sydney radio program alleged that the data was not accurate, the former Minister stopped any further data from being posted until its accuracy could be fully tested, and he immediately set up a review. I can now advertise that the review has been completed and I seek leave to table advice from the Director-General of the Department of Health on its outcome.
Leave granted.
Between January and March the review examined waiting list data from 14 hospitals. It found that five of them had misrepresented data—Prince of Wales, Bankstown, St George, St Vincent's and Sydney hospitals. As a result, immediate steps have been taken to ensure confidence in the waiting lists. First, chief executive officers [CEOs] of all area health services will be held accountable for the accuracy of all waiting list data. They must personally sign off on the accuracy of the data before it is supplied to NSW Health. Performance agreements of all area health services will be amended immediately to include such accountability. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 121
Second, the Department of Health has been instructed to establish a clear set of simple guidelines to ensure that all staff involved in accumulating waiting list data and who are organising admissions for patients fully understand their roles and responsibilities. Third, I have also asked that staff training procedures for those involved in patient admission data collection be improved, to ensure that data collected is consistent across the State. Fourth, I have instructed NSW Health to thoroughly audit all of the waiting list data over the next six months. Finally, I have requested NSW Health to put in place an ongoing program of random audits to sample waiting list data information. These measures will send a clear message to area health CEOs and hospital CEOs that waiting list data must be as accurate as humanly possible.
Another important aspect of this review is the involvement of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. The Director-General of Health took the very appropriate step of reporting both the initial and the final review findings to the ICAC. She has also referred them to the Auditor-General, who has been conducting an independent review of waiting lists. Both bodies will advise of any further action that may need to be taken. Of course, the Government will look at any such advice very seriously. Our focus is already crystal clear. If any doctor says a patient needs surgery and that patient is ready to undergo an operation, then that patient goes on the waiting list. It is as simple as that. The figures for March 2003 have been checked for accuracy and are now available. They are very encouraging.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation from the Opposition benches.
Mr IEMMA: They show a drop of more than 2,600 compared to March 2002—from 57,948 to 55,324. I also advise the House that the list of patients waiting more than 12 months for procedures has dropped by more than 3,800 over the past year—from 8,350 in March 2002 to 4,188. So, we can have greater confidence in our waiting list data, not only on their accuracy but also on the underlying performance that they measure.
EASTERN DISTRIBUTOR CONSTRUCTION HOMES DAMAGE COMPENSATION
Ms MOORE: My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. What action will he take to get urgent resolution of all Eastern Distributor compensation claims, as it is three years since the toll road opened, over a year since an independent inquiry confirmed the cause of the damage and six months since the former Minister promised full repairs without cost to the owners of houses?
Mr KNOWLES: As one would expect, I am going through a number of the issues raised by the honourable member for Bligh. I understand they are part of the original conditions of consent associated with approvals given to the Eastern Distributor. I undertake to the honourable member for Bligh to brief myself on the details, to brief her at the same time and to attempt to resolve the issues as quickly as possible.
NARDELL COAL CORPORATION PTY LIMITED RECEIVERSHIP
Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What is the Government's response to community concerns about Macquarie Investment Trust 3's offer to unsecured creditors of the Nardell Coal operations?
Mr HICKEY: It is with great sadness that I draw the attention of honourable members to the plight of the unsecured creditors of Nardell Coal Corporation Pty Limited. On 20 February this year Nardell was placed in receivership. The company cited falling coal prices, difficult mining conditions and a stronger Australian dollar as the reasons behind its decision. It agreed to pay all the entitlements of all direct employees. But what about the creditors? On close inspection this deal stinks. It stinks of hypocrisy and human carnage. Nardell is owned almost entirely by Macquarie Investment Trust 3. The trust is a $207 million venture capital vehicle of Macquarie Direct Investment Limited. Who owns Macquarie Direct Investment Limited? It is the millionaire’s factory—Macquarie Bank Limited. When Nardell went belly up in February it left a group of unsecured creditors $10 million out of pocket. These creditors are small, mainly family-owned businesses based in the Hunter Valley—the upper Hunter and the lower Hunter—creditors like Vince Martin of Eastern Mining Construction. Vince is owed more than $1 million by Nardell. In just one street of the Rutherford Industrial Estate six firms are owed a total of $4.5 million by Nardell.
These six businesses have already laid off 60 people. These people on sorrow street face financial ruin. The impact on families is absolutely devastating. Do members opposite not care about the impact on families? Do they not care about these workers? I have spoken with one lady who cries every time she talks. She is at her wits end. She and her husband are battling to keep the family home, battling to keep a roof over their heads. At 122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 least 40 of Nardell's contract workers do not have any entitlements to look forward to, all because Nardell could not or would not pay its bills. Local contractor Gerry Feeney is owed $98,000 by Nardell. On 20 February—the very day Nardell went bust—Gerry received a cheque for $55,000, but Gerry never got to cash the cheque. It is now worth as little as $9,000—all because of the miserable offer Macquarie has put on the table, a measly 17¢ in the dollar.
This offer is even more lousy when you compare it with Macquarie Bank's figures—such as, the bank's half-yearly profit last September of $183 million or the $6.1 million that was paid last year to Macquarie Bank's chief executive officer Allan Moss. For the benefit of Opposition members, that is $24,500 per day. How can a person earn that sort of money? What makes Nardell's offer truly shocking is Macquarie Bank's abandonment of its principles. Unfortunately, this behaviour has become typical of corporate Australia. Macquarie Bank prides itself on its integrity. If the positions were reversed, would the bank be happy about this dealing? The answer has to be no. If the bank's actions became publicly known, would it be ashamed or embarrassed? The answer has to be yes. All those associated with this deal should hang their heads in shame. This is nothing less than an act of corporate bastardry. If these people could walk one mile in the shoes of Vince Martin or Gerry Feeney shoes, would they be happy? The answer is no.
It is little wonder that at lunchtime today the unsecured creditors rejected this pitiful offer. My challenge to Macquarie Bank is simple: follow the example of other companies that have faced similar situations. When the neighbouring Cumnock mine closed down, Xstrata, the parent company, met all that mine's debts. I call on Macquarie Bank to act with integrity and increase its offer to these companies, families and workers. Macquarie Bank is treating them with contempt and disdain. I urge all honourable members to join with me and plead with Macquarie Bank to act with some common decency and increase its offer to 100¢ in the dollar.
MILLENNIUM TRAINS
Mr O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Why were Millennium trains running on the CityRail network during the State election campaign when the Minister was aware that the trains had safety concerns that would require their removal after the campaign?
Mr SCULLY: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should tell the truth to the House. The question is made up of two parts. The answer to the second part is that I was not informed the trains needed to be withdrawn for safety reasons. In the future members should follow the forms of the House. If members wish to ask questions on matters of transport, they should refer them to the Minister for Transport.
GAMING MACHINE HARM MINIMISATION INITIATIVES
Mr STEWART: My question without notice is to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. What is the Government's response to community concerns about problem gambling associated with gaming machines?
Mr McBRIDE: Recently there has been a great deal of speculation both in the media and other areas about harm minimisation tools that were introduced by the Government in regard to problem gambling in our society. The six-hour shutdown provisions, which are a significant part of the harm minimisation provisions that were introduced, are a key element of the Gaming Machines Act. This legislation, which came into force in April last year, contains extensive gambling harm minimisation measures. It is another key socially responsible policy of the Carr Government. Other measures include a ban on poker machine advertising, capping the number of machines in pubs and clubs and requiring venues to adopt counselling and self-exclusion programs for patrons.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Minister.
Mr McBRIDE: As part of a staged approach, a daily three-hour shutdown between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. has been in place now for more than 12 months. I point out that this legislation was foreshadowed two years ago. In July 2001 the Government provided a raft of proposals in regard to harm minimisation. In December 2001 the legislation was introduced by the Government and passed by both sides of this House. In April 2002 the first phase of the shutdown, a three-hour shutdown between 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m., came into force. The concept of a shutdown was to break the cycle of playing poker machines. It is important to understand that it is only a shutdown of the machines themselves, not a shutdown of the clubs and pubs. The 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 123 clubs and pubs are entitled to continue their operations during that period. On 1 May the shutdown moves into the second stage with a general six-hour shutdown applying between 4.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. each day. It is worth noting that again the shutdown provisions only apply to poker machines. In other words, a pub or club can still trade normally during this period serving drinks and meals.
[Interruption]
I heard the interjection of the honourable member for Vaucluse. He made an interesting point. I should continue to keep talking to him about this matter for some time. Another interjection from him would be appreciated in about 30 seconds. While the six-hour shutdown is now locked in, existing provisions provide flexibility for the industry. For example, early opener venues can apply to the Liquor Administration Board for a different six-hour poker machine shutdown time so that venues catering for shift workers and others are not disadvantaged during their busiest trading time.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse will cease interjecting. The Minister will continue with his answer.
Mr McBRIDE: In cases where early opener venues have a history of trading in the early morning, an alternative six-hour closure period can be sought. All hotels and clubs are also eligible to apply to reduce the six-hour shutdown to three hours on weekends and public holidays. I thought the Opposition would have had more interest in my answer. There has been an enormous amount of public debate about this particular issue. I note that the honourable member for Gosford is nodding his head in agreement. It is a major issue that has been canvassed by both sides of the House.
Honourable members may have read in the newspapers about concerns with the role of councils in this process. Councils are political bodies that are often ill-equipped to consider these types of matters. Politics should not be involved in granting exemptions to part of the shutdown. That is why the Government will remove council approval from the application process and give the authority to the Liquor Administration Board, a statutory body with the expertise in liquor and gaming matters that is independent of the Government. The Government is also concerned about protecting jobs. For that reason, the Government will consider the inclusion of new provisions that give proper attention to the protection of employment and the community. These measures are tough, but they are also fair. They are designed to address the issue of problem gambling in our community and the Government will proceed with the six-hour shutdown. These measures are fair in protecting jobs in the community.
The Government wants to involve stakeholders and community groups in a review to establish which gambling harm minimisation measures are most effective. Extensive debate has been conducted about the effectiveness of the proposed measures. Those measures that have been successful will be extended and improved and those that have not will be changed. The Government is implementing a comprehensive, evidence-based decision-making process to deal with harm minimisation. As part of that approach, I will ask the director general of my department to produce a report on the impact of all responsible gambling measures over the next 12 months. It is important that we provide the community with an evidence-based, anti-problem gambling strategy that works.
Questions without notice concluded.
BILL RETURNED
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Commencement) Bill.
DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVIS HUGHES, A FORMER MINISTER OF THE CROWN
Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [3.22 p.m.]: I move:
(1) That this House desires to place on record its sense of the loss this State has sustained by the death on 16 March 2003 of the Hon. Sir Davis Hughes, a former Minister of the Crown.
(2) That this House extends to his family the deep sympathy of the members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained. 124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
A couple of months ago I spoke at a luncheon organised by the Central Coast Chamber of Commerce. My attention was drawn to an old man with all the appearance of a Hebrew testament prophet. He had a mane of white hair and gaunt but alert features. I do not remember the context, but during my speech I made passing reference to the Opera House and the engagement of the great architect Joern Utzon—himself an old man—to oversee the Government's plans for the renovation of the building's interior. During question time a member of the audience—not the old man—asked me why the Government had engaged an overseas architect rather than an Australian architect to undertake the work. The penny then dropped: the 90-year-old in the audience, who was vaguely familiar, was the former Minister for Public Works, Sir Davis Hughes. After my address, I introduced myself to him and wished him well.
Davis Hughes was born in Launceston, Tasmania, in 1910, was educated at the University of Tasmania and became a teacher at 17 years of age. His career spanned the harsh years of the Great Depression and the prime ministership of that other Tasmanian schoolteacher who made good in conservative politics, Joe Lyons. Like other members of his generation, he saw service in the Second World War as a Royal Australian Air Force officer. I am sure that, like Gough Whitlam and John Gorton, his service in the RAAF during the war was a transforming experience that drew him by one route or another into politics.
That political career began in 1945 when, at war's end, he was elected to Armidale council. The Hughes family had moved to the New England region and Davis Hughes took up a teaching post at The Armidale School. Recognition as a local teacher and alderman gave him the profile he needed to win election to this Parliament in a by-election in 1950. He succeeded his mentor, David Henry Drummond, who was the conservative Minister for Eduction under three Premiers—Bavin, Stevens and Mair—and an eminent Country Party figure. Sir Davis Hughes’s inaugural speech was a heartfelt tribute to Drummond and a closely argued plea in favour of more support for rural education.
It is fair to say that Sir David Hughes’s career, even excluding the Opera House saga, was not without its disruptions, setbacks and challenges. He lost the seat of Armidale at the 1953 Cahill landslide election, and he spent three years in the political wilderness. However, he handily filled those years as Mayor of Armidale. He won back the seat in 1956 and quickly asserted himself, becoming the Country Party leader two years later when that other conservative warhorse, Michael Bruxner, finally retired from the leadership, although not from Parliament, after a record 30 years in that position.
[Interruption]
I assure the House that I am not at all tempted to break that record. It is interesting how different the National Party is today. Sir Davis Hughes’s leadership was sadly short and stressful. It culminated in a breakdown in February 1959, at which time he was hospitalised. Honourable members who have held high party or ministerial office will have great sympathy for the strains such positions can impose. Remarkably, the people of Armidale stood by him as their representative and re-elected him only one month later. In fact, he continued to be favoured by the people of Armidale—that great city—until his retirement in January 1973. I am sure that the member for Northern Tablelands will recount many stories and local lore about Davis Hughes.
Of course, 1973 was the year of the effective completion of the Opera House. Davis Hughes had done the job that Bob Askin had given him, one of the hardest, and he was to be rewarded with a not unattractive position—one that this Government was happy to see abolished—the succulent plum of New South Wales politics, the agent-generalship in London. He served honourably in that role under three successors, including Neville Wran.
I will not debate the merits of what Askin and Hughes did in those distant, turbulent years with respect to the Opera House. I withheld judgment when I released the relevant papers in this House some years ago. At the time I queried who could, with the benefit of hindsight, condemn the Minister when he was faced with the constantly rising construction bill and the pressures of the state budget. Publicly available literature covers the controversy, including Phillip Drew's book The Masterpiece, the monumental Utzon by Richard Weston and Elias Duek-Cohen's little book, published in the white heat of 1966 and reprinted a few years ago. I follow the old Roman dictum, "say nothing but good of the dead". Davis Hughes diligently pursued the objective he laid down for himself in his ministerial statement in this place dealing with completion of the Opera House while containing its costs following Utzon's resignation in 1966. On 9 March he stated:
If we are to have an architectural gem—maybe one that will be outstanding in the world—we still must consider the question of costs in relation to the social needs of the people…If you people who are coming here making complaints about not enough schools, the drought and so on, are willing to let the costs of this opera house escalate to any level, I shall not be a party to it and neither will the Government. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 125
That central understanding dominated Davis Hughes’s 7½ years as a Minister, and he lived with its consequences for the final three decades of his life, and the question he drafted for his friend at the Central Coast luncheon confirmed that. To his credit, Sir Davis never resiled from the decisions of those years; his self- defence was courageous and consistent, as confirmed by that bold question.
Sir Davis Hughes was indomitable at the age of 92. I think that is how we should remember this figure. As the history of the New South Wales Parliament shows, he began as a country schoolteacher and, through the processes and extraordinary chance of democratic politics, into his hands was placed the great responsibility of managing the construction and financing of the building of the century. It is remarkable to think of a country schoolteacher representing the people of Armidale, going through the stresses of party leadership, including the crisis in his career in 1959, and, in the Coalition Government elected in 1965, being given the responsibility of the Opera House, which has turned out to be the building of the century.
No matter how one regards his custodianship, it is clear that of all the Ministers who have had the honour of holding the Public Works portfolio, Sir Davis Hughes will be remembered with the best of them. He will be remembered as the man who—doing it his own way, to evoke Frank Sinatra—finished the Sydney Opera House according to his keen sense of respect for his office and for the people he served. I invite all members of this House to join me in honouring his memory. His story is part of the civic history of Armidale; it is part of the history of conservative, country-based politics in New South Wales. His association with the Opera House is part of the story of the world's most remarkable modern building.
Mr STONER (Oxley—Leader of the National Party) [3.31 p.m.]: On behalf of the National Party I extend sincere sympathies to the family of the late Sir Bill Davis Hughes, who died on 16 March this year at a Central Coast retirement village at the age of 92. Sir Bill was a member of this place well before my time. However, as the National Party—formerly the Country Party—is a very tight-knit group, I have been well aware of his great contribution to the Parliament and our party, and appreciate his personal attributes as a true gentleman who genuinely cared for his constituents and our democracy.
As the recently elected Leader of the National Party I am honoured to join the very distinguished group of National Party and Country Party leaders, which includes Sir Bill Davis Hughes. Bill Davis Hughes was the Country Party member for Armidale from 1950 to 1953, and again from 1956 to 1973. He was Leader of the Country Party during 1958 and 1959. From 1965 to 1973, when he retired, he was Minister for Public Works and, for a period, Acting Minister for Decentralisation and Development in the Askin-Cutler Government. On his retirement he was appointed Agent-General for New South Wales in London, a position he occupied until 1978. He was knighted in 1975.
Bill Davis Hughes, the son of an engine driver, was born in Launceston. He was educated at Launceston High School and the University of Tasmania, and chose teaching as a career from 1927 to 1935. He enlisted in the RAAF, in which he served for the duration of the war, and reached the level of squadron leader. After the war Bill Davis Hughes was appointed senior science master and deputy headmaster at the Armidale School. He left teaching to become a politician when he was elected the Country Party member for Armidale in 1950. He was also an alderman of Armidale Municipal Council, and was Mayor of Armidale from 1954 to 1956. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands, also a former mayor of Armidale, is present in the Chamber.
Bill Davis Hughes was also associated with the Farmers and Graziers Co-operative Company, he was Executive Officer of the New State Movement, a councillor of the Farmers and Settlers Association and an advisory councillor to the New England University College. Rural education held a special place in the political career of Bill Davis Hughes. He fought long and hard for improvements to rural education, particularly for equal opportunities for country children, whom he regarded as an underprivileged group in the matter of education. Small country schools were of particular concern to Bill Davis Hughes, who lamented that they lacked many basic necessities in learning, such as books, films and film projectors, sporting equipment and sporting fields. There can be no doubt that the dedication and efforts of Bill Davis Hughes in the field of rural education resulted in many young country children receiving a better education and gaining the opportunity to further their learning at universities.
No doubt Bill Davis Hughes’s record of achievement in country education was overshadowed by his legendary falling out with Joern Utzon, the Danish architect and designer of the Sydney Opera House. As Minister for Public Works in the Askin-Cutler Government, Bill Davis Hughes had control of the construction of the Opera House, which was originally commissioned by Labor Government Premier Joe Cahill. Projected in 1957 to cost $7.2 million, the estimated final cost blew out to $30 million and then to $50 million by 1966. 126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Bill Davis Hughes irritated Joern Utzon by applying tight controls over expenditure and fees, to the point where Utzon felt the integrity of the Opera House design was being challenged. He quit and returned to Denmark, while Bill Davis Hughes and the Coalition Government got on with the job of finishing the project. It is ironic, therefore, that some 37 years later Joern Utzon, at 84 years of age and living in Majorca, has once again been employed by the New South Wales Government to design and oversee a $24 million refurbishment of the Opera House, described in various architectural quarters as the eighth wonder of the world. Somehow, it is easy to imagine that Bill Davis Hughes might very well be casting a sharp eye over the refurbishment costs and architect fees!
Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [3.36 p.m.]: I join with my colleague the Leader of the National Party, other members of the National Party—the modern-day standard of the Country Party of Australia—and other members of the House in honouring the late Sir Davis Hughes. Sir Davis Hughes is known most famously for his role as Minister for Public Works in the Askin-Cutler Government and for the controversy that surrounded his relationship with the architect of that great building the Opera House.
In many senses it would be almost inappropriate for a building of such international significance not to have some level of political controversy attached to it. To that extent, it is a matter of great record and clear history as to where the Askin Government, through its Minister, Sir Davis Hughes, stood on that very important issue. Whatever the outcome of those debates, and no matter what were the difficulties of the time, the citizens of this country can be extremely proud that we have one of the most significant public buildings in the world standing on the shores of this great harbour. It is the most identifiable vision of Australia for tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people around the world. Sir Davis Hughes played not a small part, but a significant part, in that vision.
As the Minister for Public Works from 1965, at the time of the formation of the Askin-Cutler Government, until his resignation and acceptance of appointment by the Government to Agent-General of London in 1973, Sir Davis Hughes played a significant role in the construction of that building. Indeed, children in Australia today would find it hard to believe that the building was once a tram shed, that the forefathers of this city thought the best use of Bennelong Point was as a tram shed. So, in a bipartisan spirit as expressed by the Premier and my colleague the Leader of the National Party today, whilst it was a concept designed by former Labor governments, it was one effectively built by the Askin-Cutler Government under the leadership of Sir Davis Hughes but opened under a Labor Government some years later.
As has been said, Sir Davis Hughes was a former leader of the then Country Party and member for Armidale for many years. In what was the strong tradition of the then Country Party, he was also a former mayor of his local community in Armidale. As has been noted, Sir Davis Hughes, through his notoriety, was a man who remained active until his very senior years. In fact, as the honourable member for Gosford, as a former constituent, will reflect, he remained extremely active in his community almost until his death. Such is the spirit of many members of Parliament that they continue their public service once they leave this place. Sir Davis Hughes and his family—and indeed the Country Party and Liberal Party, which formed government for 11 years in the mid sixties and mid seventies—can be very proud of their involvement in the construction of that great Australian icon.
Sir Davis Hughes was a country teacher who brought great skill to the Parliament. He was clearly a man of his time, having also undertaken military service during World War II. Indeed, as a younger parliamentarian he was one of the generation of members of Parliament who served their country during war, served their community and moved on to serve as Ministers. Sir Davis Hughes went on to a greater office of Agent General—a very significant public office at the time, but now long forgotten—of Agent-General for New South Wales to London. That was a very different era but, as the Leader of the National Party properly outlined today, it was nonetheless an era that ensured that the job of a Minister was to deliver responsible and financial management. That was, in part, the nub of the very public difference between the architect and Sir Davis Hughes.
On behalf of the Liberal Party and my colleagues, and formally on behalf of the Opposition, I extend to the family of Sir Davis Hughes our condolences and our very strong view of the splendid parliamentary performance he provided to the people of Armidale and of New South Wales.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [3.41 p.m.]: I support the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and others in expressing my condolences to the family of the late Sir Bill Davis Hughes. I am probably the only person in the Chamber today who actually knew Sir Bill Davis Hughes 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 127 personally. I say that in deference to you, Mr Deputy-Speaker. Bill Davis Hughes was a man of great strength. He was a man who believed in what he said: he was a definite man. He was able to present his thoughts in a clear, precise manner. He was prepared to argue the point in order to make sure that the message was clear; and he had convictions.
The Premier referred to the fact that Sir Bill Davis Hughes became a schoolteacher in Armidale, and said it was amazing that he went on to become the Minister responsible for the world's eighth great attraction. I do not think that is so novel, because over the years many Ministers who have probably never employed anybody and who have had limited experience working with the bureaucracy, have gone on to handle departments managing thousands of people and be responsible for millions, and even billions, of dollars worth of work.
Sir Bill Davis Hughes demonstrated that a person may come from a small and humble beginning, but with the right assistance and the benefit of a good party—such as the Country Party was and is—can go on to perform with enormous credit in the management process in what is the most important board in this State, that is, the Government of the day. As previous speakers have stated, Sir Bill's great mantra was education. Most of the many speeches he made in the Parliament concerned education, except for the period when he was responsible for the building of the Opera House. In his maiden speech he said:
Existing facilities for the education of children in rural areas are inadequate, do not meet the real needs of the community, and place an unfair financial burden on the parents of such children.
Action should be taken by the Government to remedy this position by (a) increasing the number of Agricultural High Schools; (b) establishing residential rural schools to provide, at reasonable cost, a curriculum designed to meet the needs of the children and the area concerned; (c) increasing the number of qualified teachers, trained to teach agricultural and allied subjects; (d) providing free bus transport to country schools; (e) granting taxation concessions in respect of children up to the age of 18 years, educated away from home, to offset travelling and boarding expenses.
Mr Deputy-Speaker, I believe the point would not be lost on you that nothing has changed except time. That rhetoric, that presentation by Sir Bill Davis Hughes, has been repeated many times in the past 40 years—even in the recent election campaign—and probably by every country member from either side of the House who thought about education. I believe governments still have to consider free transport for children, accommodation for children and the maintenance of facilities such as airconditioning in schools for children. Sir Bill Davis Hughes has certainly set the parameters for many a member. In his maiden speech Sir Bill Davis Hughes went on to say:
My object is to focus attention very definitely on the plight of the rural child.
I am not keen on the word "plight", but I do believe that rural children in general are at a disadvantage, and in some cases they inarguably do not have the same facilities or opportunities for a quality education that city children have. One reason for that is distance, and another is the difficulty attracting professional people to schools in remote areas. It is a challenge to work in a school where police frequently have to be called to evict parents because of such things as abuse. Sir Bill Davis Hughes certainly adequately addressed those sorts of problems. He went on to say in his maiden speech:
I shall not stress that in many country areas school buildings are in a bad state of disrepair, that teaching staff have inadequate facilities and staff rooms for the preparation of their work, that many school residences are decaying, and that playing fields are lacking.
Temora West primary school does not have any staff room accommodation for the teachers. It does not have a room for parent-teacher interviews. All the improvements that have been made to the playing fields at Temora West primary school have been carried out by the parents and citizens association. No government has ever contributed to the improvements. Time goes on, governments come and go, but nothing changes. Sir Bill Davis Hughes’s words were very prophetic.
I believe that the family of Sir Bill Davis Hughes can recognise that he was a visionary in many ways—he had a great sense of cause. The fact that great controversy surrounded the Opera House makes it even more interesting. For the next 10, 50 or hundreds of years it will be part of the character of the Opera House that it was controversial. Yet that great controversy which often surrounds public buildings and public ventures throughout the history of the western world was, in this case, turned into one of the great positives for this nation. I salute Sir Bill Davis Hughes for his contribution to the Opera House and its lustre and character. I acknowledge his contribution to the governance of this State and to the character of this the oldest working parliament in the western democracy. I express my sympathy to his family. 128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.50 p.m.]: I had the honour of knowing Sir Davis Hughes, or Bill Hughes, for many years. He was a truly wonderful man. I first met him in 1986 when he retired to the Central Coast. At that stage I was only a young person with aspirations of entering into politics; I was not elected until 1988. I recall that Bill Hughes came to the Terrigal branch of the Liberal Party to talk to me and give me some advice as to how best to prepare myself and present myself for standing for a seat which was then held by the late Brian McGowan for the Australian Labor Party.
In 1988, on the night before the polling day when I was elected to this Parliament, I went out doorknocking, on a pub crawl, with Sir Davis Hughes. At the age of 78 he was still a vigorous, energetic, determined and wonderful man. We went to the liquor shop in the village of Hardys Bay, which functioned as a sort of pub. We went around the car park outside the liquor store and shook hands with everybody. Bill Hughes and I were a fairly odd team but, as it turned out the next day, we were a fairly effective team because, for the first time ever, we nearly carried the village of Hardys Bay. Since then the demographics of Hardys Bay have changed and people there now vote largely for the Liberal Party. In those days it was fairly solid Labor Party country.
Bill Hughes, a man of very humble beginnings, was the son of an engine driver in Tasmania. He was never able to complete his university course but he became a schoolteacher and then a politician. He was always very conscious of his humble origins. He was a humble man who had no pretensions of becoming anything great or famous. He viewed the title of "Sir" with disdain. When I introduced him to people he told me not to call him Sir Davis Hughes, just Bill Hughes.
Bill Hughes was a friendly and approachable man, a man of great dignity and presence as would befit a person who held the fine offices of Mayor of Armidale and deputy headmaster of Armidale school. Nonetheless, in his personal life he was a man of considerable humility. He is well remembered for his role in the Sydney Opera House controversy of the late 1960s. He was a man who was determined to see the interior of the Opera House finished within budget and according to the wishes of the New South Wales community. It is not without significance that no less a person than Joern Utzon paid tribute to him. Only recently Joern Utzon acknowledged in a statement to the media that Sir Davis Hughes had an important job. Obviously they had a difference of opinion about how the interior of the Opera House should be finished. Joern Utzon made the point that Sir Davis Hughes insisted on the completion of the Opera House. People forget that there was considerable argument about whether the project should be completed. An article in the Australian of 17 October 2002 states:
Utzon harboured no ill feeling towards Davis Hughes, the Coalition Minister who forced him off the Opera House.
Utzon acknowledged that it was because of Sir Davis Hughes that the Opera House was completed within budgetary controls. The project's budget, which had blown out, was a major issue at the 1965 election, which brought the Coalition to power. Much anger was felt in country New South Wales because of the millions of pounds that were being squandered on the Opera House and were not being recouped by the public relations gesture of the Opera House lottery. It was to the credit of Sir Davis Hughes that the project was finished. As the Premier said earlier, it was the building of the century. Sydney, once known worldwide for its Harbour Bridge, is now known worldwide for the magnificence of its Opera House. That is a great legacy to Sir Davis Hughes, as it is to Joern Utzon and many other people.
Sir Davis Hughes always defended his role. Whenever the Opera House issue came up—even in his eighties and his nineties—he always wrote to the media and made sure that his view was properly put. He had a mission to finish this great masterpiece within budget. He achieved that mission. Sir Davis Hughes represented the old Country Party. The great traditions of the old Country Party changed as the years went by, but Sir Davis Hughes always observed those traditions. On one occasion when a Liberal Party candidate made an address to a Probus club meeting which was attended by about 80 or 90 people, Bill was asked whether he would give a vote of thanks as he was from the Liberal Party. He said, "No, I will not give a vote of thanks. I support the Liberal Party but I am from the Country Party. You should never assume that the two parties are the same. We are separate identities. It is more appropriate that you ask Chris Hartcher, who is a Liberal, to move the vote of thanks." He did not say that in any way disparagingly of the Liberal Party; he emphasised the point that he represented the great tradition of the Country Party.
On behalf of my friend and colleague the Hon. Michael Gallacher I acknowledge that during the 1993 election, when Sir Davis Hughes was 83 years old, in the heat of the summer months he took Mike Gallacher out doorknocking around Hardys Bay—a quite hilly area of the Federal electorate of Robertson, in my electorate of Gosford. Very few people at that age would have shown the stamina and the commitment to the Coalition cause that Sir Davis Hughes showed. Mike Gallacher always comments to me just how remarkable it was to be out with this wonderful man doorknocking in the electorate for the 1993 Federal election campaign. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 129
Lady Hughes telephoned me a few days before Bill died and told me that Bill was very sick. She conveyed to me on Bill's behalf his good wishes and her good wishes for the election on 22 March. Bill retained a keen interest in politics right to the end. He loved politics and he was a great supporter of the Coalition. He thought that Nick Greiner and Wal Murray were a most wonderful team. He told me something that I took to the Cabinet room. He said, "In the eight years that I was a Minister in the Askin-Cutler Government from 1965 to 1973 not once did the Cabinet divide on Liberal-Country party lines. There were divisions in the Cabinet but the two parties functioned as one."
When I went into Cabinet in 1992, I wondered whether that precept still held true, and it did. For the three years I was in the Cabinet—and I reported this back to Bill Hughes—the Cabinet never divided on Liberal-National party lines. We had our differences but they were always resolved by the two parties— something I am sure the honourable member for Upper Hunter will attest to. The two parties always worked as one. Sir Davis Hughes was pleased to know that we had followed in that great tradition; that as a Cabinet we worked as one unit and were never two separate political parties.
I convey my deep regrets to Lady Phillippa Hughes. She is the wonderful widow to a wonderful man. She often used to attend Liberal Party election functions. In his final years Bill loved fishing. He would go out with Jack Davey, a member of the Liberal Party Empire Bay branch. They would often go out fishing on Brisbane Water and, on occasions—quite adventurously for two guys both in their late eighties—they would go out on the high seas. I always thought that that was quite remarkable. Two gentlemen, aged almost 90, would take out their little boat—
Mr Brogden: Did they catch anything?
Mr HARTCHER: Sometimes they caught a cold but more often than not they caught some magnificent fish. The world is much richer because of people like Bill Hughes. I convey my condolences to Lady Phillippa and to Bill's family.
Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [3.59 p.m.]: I am pleased to join the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and other honourable members in paying tribute to Sir William Davis Hughes. Many references have been made about his support for the construction of the Sydney Opera House and his services to this State during his term as a Minister. However, I would like to refer to the contributions that Sir Bill made to the Armidale community. The Premier highlighted the fact that the people of Armidale always supported Davis Hughes because he was a fine representative. He served as mayor of Armidale and had a strong commitment to education and other areas of public life. Indeed, a strong commitment and dedication to education has become a tradition in Armidale.
Sir William Davis Hughes is best remembered in Armidale for having secured for that city one of the best water supplies in the State. It was largely through his efforts that Malpas Dam was constructed. During the recent drought it proved its worth in reaching 75 per cent capacity at its lowest level. I assure honourable members that research has shown that the building of that dam was as controversial at the local level as the Sydney Opera House was at the national and international levels. However, Davis Hughes was steadfast in his support for this infrastructure, as he was for many other projects. The dam was built to ensure that even in the worst of droughts the city would have a plentiful supply of fresh water for more than five years. He has left a wonderful legacy to the community that he served.
He was known locally as Sir Bill, although he did not like the title "Sir". I was fortunate enough to briefly meet him here in Parliament at a function held for former members, and at that time I reflected on some of the significant contributions he had made. He represented the seat of Armidale from 1950 to 1953 and from 1956 to 1973. Between 1954 and 1956 he served as mayor of Armidale. I too was honoured to serve in that capacity and I remember seeing the portrait of Sir Davis Hughes hanging proudly, as it still does, in the foyer of the Armidale-Dumaresq council chambers.
Sir Bill became the State Leader of the Country Party in 1958. From 1965 to 1973 he served as Minister for Public Works and he was the special Minister responsible for the construction of the Sydney Opera House. From 1973 he served as Agent-General in London and in 1975 he was knighted and made a Freeman of the city of London—further well-deserved acknowledgment. Only three weeks ago the Deputy-Speaker informed me that Sir Bill had been given an honorary doctorate from the University of Newcastle in recognition of his enormous contribution to the community. Sir Bill gained respect as a committed local member who worked tirelessly for his local community, and my constituents regularly remind me of his achievements. On behalf of the people of the Northern Tablelands I extend sympathy to his family on his passing. 130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [4.05 p.m.]: I, too, join with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and other honourable members in offering my condolences to the family of the late Sir Davis Hughes. Bill Davis Hughes was variously known as Sir Davis Hughes, Bill Davis Hughes, Sir Davis Hughes and Billy Hughes, due to a nickname given to him by former colleagues and derived from the famous Billy Hughes, the former Prime Minister. Bill Davis Hughes was a parliamentarian of the older style. The old mail train from Armidale to Sydney, which had sleeping compartments, would pick up various members of Parliament along the way and I can only assume that those members would have had little sleep!
Bill Davis Hughes was a former teacher at an Armidale school. His funeral was held the day before the last election and I noted the presence of two former teachers of the school—although not necessarily contemporaries—Graham Bailey and Tim Copeland. I shall relate a short story that is probably a myth but reflects the older style of parliamentary representation and the older teaching style. On his first appraisal of a class, Bill Davis Hughes had the great knack of selecting who would be the chief troublemaker, the ringleader, the one he should target and get under control immediately. During his first class on his first day at the school he accurately selected the potential culprit and turfed him out of class. In that way he asserted his authority and maintained discipline.
I had the privilege to represent the National Party at Sir Bill's funeral on the Central Coast, as I was en route home from Sydney. Also in attendance were three well-known members of Parliament: former Premier Tom Lewis, Sir John Fuller, and George Freudenstein. Bill's brother conducted the funeral service and I was deeply moved by the high esteem in which he was held and his deep love of his wife, Lady Phillippa, his family and his siblings. Indeed, at this time I reflect on what seemed to me to be a stark contrast: that of his persona, which was the way of politics in those days, and the fact that he was an intensely private person.
As others have said, he was nonetheless a staunch Country Party-National Party person and attended annual National Party conferences until only recently. I was one of those who received many a telephone call from Bill Davis Hughes offering comments and providing advice on the various issues of the day, which I certainly valued. He was a true statesman and an intensely loyal man. He was a man of substance who was capable of embracing the major issues of the day and of making major decisions. The construction of the Sydney Opera House—other honourable members have also referred to that project—is a testament to his substance. Bill Davis Hughes made a great and enduring contribution to public life in New South Wales. I express my condolences to Lady Phillippa, his loving wife, and to the other members of his family.
Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.10 p.m.]: The Hon. Sir Davis Hughes, like so many of his generation, returned from war determined to make the world a better place. He did this throughout his career, first at a local level in the northern tablelands and ultimately by serving his community as a member of this Parliament. It was no mean feat—notwithstanding the fact that the Premier glossed over it—that, having lost his seat at the end of his first parliamentary term, he managed to secure it again. Winning a seat from one's opponents is not an everyday occurrence in this place and regaining one's seat is even rarer.
Sir Davis Hughes was credited with making three major contributions to the development and implementation of policy by the Askin-Cutler Government, which came to power in 1965. He provided a good deal of the education philosophy that underpinned the dramatic improvement in the curriculum development and the physical standard of country schools. Policy that he developed while in opposition—particularly in relation to the development of country water and sewerage schemes—was the basis for much of the public works program that he implemented in government as Minister for Public Works. He was the brains behind the Askin Government's decentralisation push and, of course, the Minister who had to take control and finish the job of building the Opera House.
The point that is often lost—or perhaps forgotten, or hidden by the mists of time—is that Utzon and his team encountered problems in translating his brilliant design into reality. When Davis Hughes assumed office and was confronted with mounting costs and problems, he did what any good Minister should: He put the public interest first and took the hard decisions. Unfashionable as it may be today, the hard fact is that Sir Davis Hughes was as central to the completion of the Opera House as Utzon was to its inception.
The sequence of events surrounding the Opera House controversy is well documented and has been spoken about by most honourable members today. Lesser known, and certainly not as well recorded, is the breadth of Sir Davis Hughes’s contribution across government. As has been mentioned, his maiden speech on 28 March 1950 was—as might have been expected from a teacher—a detailed analysis of the shortcomings of 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 131 the school education system offered to rural children at that time. He noted that farming and agriculture were becoming more scientifically based but that this was not broadly reflected in the education system offered to country children. He noted that school education was focused to assist the very small group of students who proceeded to university. Schools, he argued, were not catering for the bulk of country students, including the children of small farmers, timber workers, shearers and fettlers who lived and worked in isolated circumstances.
Sir Davis Hughes noted the difficulties facing country teachers, particularly those in one-teacher schools who were expected to educate up to 34 students across a range of classes without assistance. He noted that, while technical high schools were being introduced to prepare city children who did not intend to proceed to university, there were only three agricultural high schools throughout the State to assist the 70 per cent of country children who intended to stay and work on the land. Sir Davis Hughes spoke of the need to "develop the full personality" of country children aged from 12 to 15 years through a revolutionary proposal for a network of residential rural schools. All of this was pretty progressive and visionary stuff in 1950. When the Country Party came to office 15 years later education was a top priority and parliamentary leader Sir Charles Cutler took up the portfolio. Sir Davis Hughes and Sir Charles, as the respective Ministers for Public Works and for Education, embarked upon a construction program that saw a major upgrade of school buildings and facilities throughout the State.
I also speak today because my father-in-law, Bruce Cowan, served as a Country Party member of Parliament in this place from 1965 until 1980. He closely observed Bill Davis Hughes and his contemporaries in the party room, the Parliament and in public and has nothing but praise for his abilities and character. Over the Easter weekend I was regaled with stories about Davis Hughes’s visits to the Oxley electorate and the improvements that he delivered to Port Macquarie, Taree and the Manning Valley. I noted earlier to the honourable member for Port Macquarie that Settlement Point would not be as it is today were it not for the sewerage scheme introduced by Bill Davis Hughes following an electorate visit to Oxley with my father-in-law. Those were the days when Ministers visited electorates unprepared and made decisions about funding improvements without the advice of departmental experts, without spending months agonising over the issue and without generating the sort of paperwork that supports current decision-making processes in this place.
While Bill Hughes was a member of the Country Party—which is often regarded as conservative, as was the Askin Government—he was at times a little frustrating but showed flair. I am told that Sir Charles Cutler loved to have black ministerial cars but two offenders—Pat Morton, former leader of the Liberal Party, and Bill Davis Hughes, former leader of the National Party—insisted upon having brightly coloured American vehicles as their ministerial cars. Apparently Charlie Cutler was furious when those cars would be lined up at Government House when the Ministry was sworn in.
Bruce Cowan described Davis Hughes, Charlie Cutler and John Fuller as being central to the success of the Askin Government—a point also made by the honourable member for Gosford, who said that there was little separation between the National Party and the Liberal Party throughout that Cabinet period. They did not operate as separate entities, and that point is reinforced by the experiences of my father-in-law. It demonstrates that Cutler, Fuller and Hughes were intelligent, capable Ministers who worked with Bob Askin to advance the cause of this State. To me, those three—like three later Federal National Party Ministers, Anthony, Sinclair and Nixon, who worked with Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—provided the model of a strong and successful Coalition that, even today, members on this side should seek to emulate.
In expressing my condolences to Lady Hughes and her family, I also place on record the acknowledgement and appreciation that the State owes Sir Davis Hughes. Bill Hughes was an all-rounder who made a contribution as a Minister in successive Askin-Cutler governments, and it is the breadth of this contribution that I place on record today. He played a significant policy and management role in delivering a range of benefits to New South Wales, particularly to country communities throughout the State.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.17 p.m.]: My first sighting of Bill Davis Hughes was as a young high school student when I came to Sydney on an excursion and visited the site of the Opera House. Davis Hughes was overseeing the site that day in his ministerial capacity. He was an impressive man, although not a tall man even by the standards of that era. I did not give it another thought until 1991 when Dorrigo was returned to the electorate of Coffs Harbour. Dorrigo residents had previously regarded themselves as the only true swinging voters in New South Wales as they had swung between the electorates of Armidale, Clarence and Coffs Harbour. There was a hectic election campaign and I made a list of the people who helped me, including Sir Davis Hughes. Unbeknown to me he had, at the age of about 80, doorknocked throughout Dorrigo. He still had great feeling and empathy for the people of Dorrigo and he was extremely well liked and well regarded in that 132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 community. Dorrigo is not an easy place to doorknock—some would say that a person needs one short leg to get around the hills in that area. Yet even at that age Davis Hughes doorknocked every resident in Dorrigo.
I dropped him a thank-you note and received a telephone call from him. He reproved me for addressing him as "Sir Bill" in my letter—he did not mind that title; most people in the National Party called him "Sir Davis Hughes" but I always called him "Sir Bill". He thanked me for the letter but also gave me some advice about what constituents in Dorrigo needed, because he had visited Dorrigo. As a previous Minister for Public Works he advised me that the sewerage and water schemes in the area needed attending to and that the local primary school needed shelter between the classrooms because of the winter weather in Dorrigo.
I made representations to Wal Murray, the then Deputy Premier, not on Sir Davis Hughes’s behalf but on his advice, and I am pleased to say that the then Deputy Premier ensured that the water and sewerage schemes were upgraded and that Dorrigo High School got covered walkways between the classrooms. But the relationship did not end there. As the honourable member for Upper Hunter said, Sir Davis Hughes attended National Party annual conferences when he could. He had a shock of white hair. When he spoke at a conference, which he did well, he commanded the respect and attention of all those who were present. He did not waste words. He spoke passionately on issues related to regional development or education, or on other issues that were near and dear to his heart.
I know that later he visited Dorrigo on occasions. Indeed, he spoke to me about the need for the upgrading and maintenance of Dorrigo High School. During the debate on dairy deregulation I received a phone call from Gosford from Sir Davis Hughes, who simply said, "You have to look after these people. These people have served that community well and supported you well." He insisted that their views be brought forward to the Parliament, which I did. As honourable members have said, although Sir Davis Hughes had been retired for many years, he left a great legacy to this State as a result of the job he did. He left a great legacy to the people of Armidale, the people of the Coffs
Harbour electorate and the people of Dorrigo. He took a great interest in them while he was the local member and while he was a Minister, and even in retirement he kept an eye on all things important to regional and rural New South Wales. I express my condolences to Lady Phillippa Davis Hughes and to other members of his family. Sir Davis Hughes was a great man, and he will be sorely missed.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
Motion agreed to.
DEATH OF MR JAMES ANDERSON, MEMBER FOR LONDONDERRY
Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [4.22 p.m.]: I move:
(1) That this House desires to place on record its sense of the loss this State has sustained by the death on 22 March 2003 of James (Jim) Anderson, member for Londonderry.
(2) That the Speaker convey to the family the deep sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.
(3) That, as a mark of respect, this House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 10.00 a.m.
Polling day is a sacrament for those of us involved in the political craft. There is no day like it. You have invested a huge amount of your personal capacity; you do not have another reserve tank left. You know that your supporters will be moving down the dawn's early light to work in schools and church halls, and your posters will be put up. You are grateful for all of that. You are looking forward to an exhausting day touring the booths. It was after Jim Anderson had set things up that he returned home to have a cup of tea, at the start of such a day, and suddenly died. All of us who got the news that morning were terribly saddened, and all of us thought as one of his widow, Kathleen, and his family.
I have vivid memories of Jim. I remember him, perhaps during his first year in the House, taking me aside in the corridor and saying, "I didn't like what you said at the last caucus meeting, when you said you had nothing to report on and you would not detain the caucus. And then you sat down." I will not attempt to replicate his beautiful accent—it was a pleasure to hear—but he said, "I think you should give us a report." I apologised; I said that I did not think there had been big events in the past week. He said, "You are duty bound. You should give us at report." I said, "All right". As Labor members know, even if a caucus meeting is short and routine I give a report. That is the kind of bloke Jim was. He was altogether supportive of me, encouraging and a loyalist, but he had a sense of what was right and appropriate. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 133
I remember Jim taking me on a trip around his electorate one day. He convened a meeting with primary school captains in his electorate. The meeting was not convened by anyone else. I remember having a chat with a school captain from one school. I said, "This thing about crossing the Blue Mountains, you know that we can no longer refer to Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth as being the first people to cross the Blue Mountains." The school captain—a little boy as bright as one can imagine—said, "That's right. They were only the first people to record that they had crossed the Blue Mountains." I will never forget that story because it suggests that primary school youngsters now have the correct notion in their heads about the reality of this continent before 1788. Jim organised the meeting; it was the Premier meeting school captains from his area.
On another occasion Jim took me to a senior citizens gathering at a youth centre. He had bought the flowers and he had paid for the cake and the afternoon tea. He knew everyone by name. He was an absolutely hands-on local member; he was involved in and engaged with all the life of his community. There is a bit in his career and his personal history that suggests why that should be the case. Jim came from Belfast; he had a harsh upbringing on the Falls Road. Newly married, he left at the age of 23 for a future in Sydney. I understand that he had experienced unemployment, and I remember that that weighed heavily with him. He kept seeing me about the fact that there were insufficient jobs for the youngsters at the schools in his electorate and about the need for development in his area. I visited a factory with him, which was important. Until I learnt a bit more about Jim I did not realise that it arose from an experience of unemployment.
Was it not ironic that Jim represented the seat of Londonderry? Londonderry was represented by an Ulsterman of Catholic faith. Jim's funeral, in which the honourable member for Mount Druitt played a prominent role, was a great Labor funeral. To have Father Colbourne, the son of the legendary State secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Bill Colbourne, officiating at the funeral was a great thing. Father Colbourne said that he had been quietly thrilled on election night when he heard me dedicating Labor's victory to the Anderson family. Jim's funeral was a great Labor send-off with a strong Irish flavour. It was a symbol of the esteem in which this traditional Labor member was held. Jim focussed very much on education. He had an instrumental role in developing the Nirimba education precinct. His work as a member of the board of the Western Sydney Institute of TAFE was very real, and his rapport with the teachers and the youngsters at the gathering of school captains was instantly clear to me.
I want to establish five scholarships that will stand as an enduring memorial to Jim—not a memorial of stones or bronze but a memorial of the gift of education. I propose five scholarships, each worth $5,000, for a student undertaking formal full-time study at either the University of Western Sydney or a TAFE New South Wales college. Those eligible to apply will be higher school certificate students attending government high schools or campuses in the Blacktown local government area or the Londonderry electorate—the people that Jim fought for, young people who will honour Jim's memory by taking up the educational opportunities for which he fought so hard. A local parent who knew Jim wrote to me a few days after he died. She listed some of the small things he had done for people in the electorate, then added:
Mr Anderson had an open invitation to our school communities, school councils, P & C, ladies auxiliary meetings, presentation days, special assemblies, fetes, fundraisers, discos, Anzac days, science quests, education week, open days. He was always there.
He was always there—that was our Jim. It was inevitable that a man such as Jim, in Western Sydney and with his background, would gravitate to the Labor Party. Condolence is what this motion is about, and that is our chief emotion as we think of him. We think of him so vividly that he could be here on the benches with us, with a cheeky comment or two, a characteristic smile and his wisdom delivered in that lovely winning Irish accent. We share the sorrow with Jim's widow, Kath, his children, Rhona and Robert, and all those who held him in respect and affection. I meant it when I dedicated the election victory to him at Randwick Labor Club. There is something more because when hope and faith and charity like Jim's are as scarce on this earth as they seem to be it is appropriate to give thanks for the few—too few—inspiring years we had with Jim Anderson, whose ardour and humour, whose beguiling Celtic voice, and whose indomitable faith are sorely lost and will be long missed. In this House and everywhere this quiet man of the people left his gracious, indelible touch. The election victory was dedicated to him. We wish him goodbye and think of his family and say, "God rest you."
Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [4.32 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I join with the Government in extending to the family of Jim Anderson, the former member for Londonderry and before that St Marys, our condolences. I note the presence in the gallery of members of the Anderson family. It is a rare occurrence—I struggle to use the word "unique"—that a member would pass away on election day. As a Catholic—I am sure Mrs Anderson will understand this—I refer to the unique concept of purgatory that members of Parliament experience on election day. From the time the booths open until they close it is our purgatory on earth. Jim did not experience that last purgatory on earth. From my dealings with him and his 134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 dealings with members of the Opposition in this House, we know that he will go straight past purgatory and to heaven. Jim's death was obviously a shock not only to his family but to the people of the Londonderry electorate. I was shocked to hear of his death early that morning. That morning I took the opportunity to extend the Coalition's condolences and to reflect on his good humour and on his smile as he sat on the Government benches as Deputy Government Whip. As I was able to say to Mrs Anderson just prior to this motion being moved today, none of us had a bad word to say about him. Today is an example of where politics are put aside and humanity is brought to the fore.
Mr Souris: Absolutely.
Mr BROGDEN: As my colleague and friend the honourable member for Upper Hunter agrees, none of us had a bad word to say about Jim—in fact, most of us had a good word for him. He was clearly a child of the Labor Party, although he was born in Northern Ireland. He served with great pride as a mayor of Blacktown and then moved to State Parliament. It is often the case that when we reflect on a member in this House we rarely know them, or we know them not through their parliamentary service but many years after they have left Parliament.
We often reflect on a member's maiden speech. Jim commenced his maiden speech in November 1995 in not only what I regard to be a unique fashion but in a gentlemanly fashion. He started by thanking the people of St Mary's—bear in mind this was at the commencement of a Labor Government after the defeat of a Liberal- National Government that had enjoyed office for seven years; a very close election. His first tribute was to John Fahey, Ray Chappell, Chris Downy, George Souris, Jim Longley, Virginia Chadwick, Robert Webster and Anne Cohen for visiting his electorate while he was the mayor of Blacktown. It was quite remarkable to read the gentlemanly manner in which he commenced his time in Parliament. He carried that through to the very end.
In his maiden speech he talked about a matter that I understand was very dear to his heart: unemployment. Jim came to Australia from Northern Ireland at a time when unemployment was massive— beyond any understanding of an Australian today, let alone at that time. He finished his maiden speech in a beautiful manner. After highlighting his wishes for the people of his electorate, his wishes for the people of the State, his commitment to serving them, and his thanks to the rank and file members of the Labor Party who stood on those booths for him in that previous election, he offered some beautiful words to his family. He said:
Last, I offer my sincere appreciation to my family: to my son, Robert, who is always there when I need him, and to my daughter, Rhona, likewise. There is an old Irish saying that behind every good man there is a better woman. In my case that is quite true because without my wife, Kathleen, I would have achieved nothing. Her support in my every endeavour has been absolute. No- one has worked harder, longer and more effectively than Kathleen Anderson. To Kathleen I am deeply indebted, more than I could ever acknowledge.
That acknowledgement is made today in a public sense on behalf of the people of New South Wales. I note that the honourable member for Mount Druitt, a very close friend of the late Jim Anderson, spoke at his funeral. Mr Anderson mentioned his friendship with the honourable member for Mount Druitt during his maiden speech. If there is any one member of this House upon whom Mr Anderson's passing fell the heaviest it is Richard Amery. We on this side understand that. We on this side make lots of jokes and lots of political play about Labor mates, but theirs was truly a strong and genuine mateship.
Most of the opportunities Opposition members had to interact with Jim were across the Chamber and in the committee process. The usual interaction between the Opposition and the Government with Jim Anderson was always courteous, respectful and friendly. He knew that we were all here to serve the community. I cannot speak on this matter authoritatively, but I imagine that he was someone who was elected primarily to serve the community not his own ambitions. Indeed, I imagine that the job of Government Deputy Whip—or possibly Government Whip—would have been the pinnacle of his ambitions. He served his party well, he served his people well and he served his family well.
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.38 p.m.]: Jim Anderson was one of life's true gentlemen, and we will certainly miss him. He lived his life deeply involved with people and the community he lived in. He lived his life true to Labor philosophy and practices. His death was shocking to us all—it was certainly unexpected. His death was tragic as it happened when he was only 59. I suppose there is a certain dignity in dying doing something you love. Jim was getting ready for his campaign workers on polling day.
That Jim did not get to celebrate Labor's resounding victory is sad—he worked hard for it. He worked hard for his electorate and for a great Labor victory. Jim and his wife, Kathleen, had been out together 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 135 letterboxing in the days before the election. They were obviously a close family. I express my deep condolences to his wife of more than 30 years, to his daughter, Rhona, to his son, Robert, and to his grandchildren, Kiara and Adam, on their great loss. I am sure that many honourable members will talk in detail about Jim's biography and his achievements, but I would like to mention a few that meant something to me. Jim's Irishness was a constant fascination to us all. He loved it, he lived it. He came to Australia in 1966, but his ties with Ireland—particularly the Republican movement—were strong. The Sinn Fein chief negotiator during the peace process and the current British member for Mid Ulster, Martin McGuiness, sent an important message to Jim's funeral. He said:
His sudden death has come as a shock to us all. It will be greeted with great sadness throughout the Republican community in Ireland. Jim's politics were not just from the heart but from his experience of growing up in West Belfast and working life. I wish to pay tribute to Jim, a man who lived a life dedicated to the core principles of social justice, civil rights and Irish unity.
Jim was one of the most popular mayors of Blacktown before his election to the seat of St Marys in 1995. As the Premier said, it is an irony that after the redistribution in 1995 Jim's seat was renamed Londonderry. I want to talk about some of the experiences I had with Jim. He would often see me about the ADI development at St Marys. It was a contentious issue—whether it should all be a park or whether it should be developed. Jim had the clear view that we could have both. He needed to be able to do everything he could to ensure jobs in the area. He would regularly have in his mind or bring to me the latest unemployment figures in that area. He would ask where people would get jobs. They had to go out of the area for jobs. He was keen to get jobs in that area. He also knew the beauty of the area and realised he could get a very large park as part of the development. He knew that with good negotiation he would get better transport routes so that when he did get development in the area it would not be bereft of transport, as was so often the case with developments of the past.
On another occasion he was fighting for one of his other passions, which happened to be in my bailiwick at the time: housing. He was constantly on my tail about the department needing to do better. I remember him talking about the need for more money for maintenance in his area. He had been receiving the standard letters drafted by the department and dutifully signed by the Minister. It was not what Jim wanted the Labor response to be, so he rang me and said we had to get out there and have a look. We organised to see some of the houses that needed maintenance and decided to go to a vacant one first. The department's officers expected us to look at it from the outside; they had not been to it recently. Jim said, "Come on in and have a look." On the way in we saw a neighbour, who said hello and then scuttled off. We thought he might have been shy of the local member. As we came out very rapidly we realised why the neighbour had run away: the place was infested with fleas and the neighbour had run off to get insecticide from his home and was spraying us down. Jim was hands-on and understood the practical realities. It was not a matter of talking about it to get the message through—he would take you to see what was going on.
I refer to another example involving the housing portfolio. He said that a Department of Housing house needed to be repainted on the inside. He was informed that the department was happy to pay for the paint if the tenant would do the work. The department had not checked—the tenant was aged 94! Of course, that had not escaped Jim's attention. That incident led to an accelerated improvement program, a change of government policy, a program that would actually fix the problems he was identifying. He did not accept that that was the way it would be; he got in there and made the changes. He was always happy. He was always an optimistic person. He enthused me that we are in this job to make the changes, to get the benefits for the people we represent, and we have to be positive and bring people along. It is a very good lesson for us all to remember— that you can make those changes if you look at what is going on and bring the bureaucracy and the Ministers along with you. Obviously, he should be here with us. In many ways we know that he is here with us. I miss him enormously. He would always give me good advice and it was always worthwhile having a chat with him. We will miss him enormously. Goodbye, Jim.
Mr STONER (Oxley—Leader of the National Party) [4.45 p.m.]: On behalf of the National Party I offer our condolences to the family and friends of James Anderson, the Labor Party member for Londonderry who so tragically died on the morning of the 22 March election. It was a measure of the man that both sides of politics held James Anderson in high esteem, as was evidenced by the blend of mourners who attended his funeral at St Aidan's Church at Rooty Hill. I came to know Jim Anderson quite well during the previous term of Parliament in his role as Deputy Government Whip while I was Deputy National Party Whip. Whips should work together in the interests of the good functioning of Parliament. Jim Anderson was always more than willing to do this, and this made for the smooth running of votes, speaking orders and the like. Jim was a gentleman who will be sorely missed in this place.
Jim Anderson was elected to Parliament in 1995 as a member of the first Carr Government. Prior to his election he was the mayor of Blacktown for some four years and, as such, had occasion to work with a number 136 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 of then Coalition Government members, including former Premier John Fahey, and former Ministers the Hon. Ray Chappell, the Hon. Chris Downy, the Hon. George Souris, the Hon. Jim Longley, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, the Hon. Robert Webster and the Hon. Anne Cohen. Clearly, Jim Anderson was not without contacts in the period of the Coalition Government prior to 1995. As attested to by the Premier and the Deputy Premier, Jim Anderson was very much a hands-on local politician. He was constantly concerned about unemployment and its destructive impact on the community, particularly youth. Because St Marys is in the seat of Londonderry Jim Anderson had direct contact with the problem, unemployment in his area traditionally being among the highest in the State. It was an issue on which Jim and I saw very much eye to eye, my electorate of Oxley also having high unemployment and associated social problems. I know that Jim was a man of principle and that he had a genuine commitment to try to solve those problems. In this place and in his electorate of Londonderry he worked tirelessly to alleviate the problem. Parliament and the people of Londonderry will sorely miss Jim Anderson.
Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [4.48 p.m.]: I join the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and all other members who will speak to the condolence motion. I express my deepest sympathy and that of my wife, Marie, to Kathleen, Rhona, Kevin, the children and to Robert on the loss of Jim Anderson—a tragedy that has been spoken about many times. I had the honour of delivering a eulogy to Jim at his funeral service at St Aidan's Catholic Church just days after his sudden death in the early hours of the morning of election day. On behalf of the Anderson family I thank the many members of Parliament for their attendance at Jim's funeral. I am sure that if the family had the opportunity to speak in this Chamber they would express appreciation for the incredible turnout of parliamentarians from both sides of the House at the service as well as to the many people employed within Parliament—the staff, the Clerks, members of the Parliamentary Library and Hansard. We saw just about everybody. It was incredible that virtually everyone in the building had moved to Rooty Hill for a few short hours to pay their respects to Jim Anderson. It meant a lot to Kath and the family, and also to the local community. I do not think the local community had ever seen a funeral of that size and significance.
Thinking of that funeral service—and, of course, of Jim and Kath's life in Australia, which I have probably done on most days since then—one cannot but appreciate the country in which we live, and the one to which a young couple by the name of Kathleen and James Anderson first came in 1966. Amid all the sadness surrounding Jim's sudden death, and the dramatic way that it has changed the life of the Anderson family, there is a wonderful story: about a young couple who meet and marry in Ireland on 19 February 1966 and a little over two weeks later head off to Australia to start a new life.
They obtain employment, build a home, and raise a family. This is in a place where the political system enables Jim and people like him, by simply joining the branch of a political party—in Jim's case the Australian Labor Party—to later be elected to the local council, to become the mayor of a city and subsequently to be elected to the State Parliament on two occasions, representing the two State seats of St Marys and Londonderry. Jim and Kath, as a team, achieved that. Jim was proud to have done that as a family.
Sadly, what Jim did not know was how well he was regarded by so many people. From time to time he would have seen perhaps an appreciative letter or card or heard an approving comment. But without being able to see into the future, I am sure Jim could not have imagined that his funeral service would demonstrate that he was regarded with such kindness and affection. Could he ever have imagined as he headed to Australia that his community would turn out in such large numbers at his funeral and that the crowd would include the State Premier, nearly all Labor members of the Parliament, Independent members and members of the Opposition? I noted Barry O'Farrell, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, prominent among those at the service, together with a host of dignitaries, including the Consul General of Jim's native country. Indeed, I want to acknowledge the attendance of the Consul General of Ireland, Anne Webster, at the funeral service.
Sometimes, after our conversations—and there were many of them—I would feel guilty that I jibed him about different things. But I am sure that if I had ever related to Jim all of the things I have just said and added something like, "If anything ever happened to you, Jim, the Premier would dedicate a historic election day victory to your memory, and the Liberal Party Opposition would not contest the by-election for your seat, stating among the reasons for its decision its respect for Jim Anderson," he would have told me, "Get away with you!" I am sure he would have laughed and scoffed in disbelief. Well, Jim, if you are listening, all of that happened—and deservedly so.
Although the Sinn Fein letter read at the funeral makes me think I am uninformed about some of Jim's earlier politics, to my knowledge his Australian political path started in 1978, when he came to know Tony 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 137
Johnson, my predecessor in this place, through the local church—the church in which his service was held. Tony encouraged Jim to join the local branch of the Labor Party. I know many members of the House do similar things from time to time. I was the branch secretary when Jim came to his first meeting, on 12 May 1978, at the Rooty Hill Senior Citizen's Hall. It is still held there, by the way, for those who are interested! He just wanted to have a look. I recall him signing the attendance book as just a visitor. But he must have been happy with what happened on that evening because we saw him turn up again at the next meeting, on 9 June, and lodge his membership application. At the following meeting, on 14 July, in the true traditions of the rules of the Labor Party, Jim was accepted as a member of the party and issued with his ticket. I hope members of the party who similarly encourage people to become members would not regard it as novel that Jim joined the party by just attending meetings and signing attendance books at them. But Jim did just that. Those were the good old days!
For the record, Jim was a regular attender, often being up on his feet and moving motions on a variety of issues and putting questions to local elected people who attended branch meetings and gave reports. In the early days they included John Armitage, the Federal member for Chifley; Tony Johnson, who, as I have already mentioned, was the member for both Mount Druitt and Riverstone; Ron Mulock, who a little later became Deputy Premier and represented the seat of St Marys; and of course Jim Lynch, a councillor and later mayor of Blacktown council. Still later, the list would include people like Roger Price, who spoke at the church service, and, of course, myself.
Jim's involvement in party affairs expanded. He became the Secretary of the Chifley Federal Electorate Council and Senior Vice-President of our own Rooty Hill branch. It was no surprise to anyone when Jim was selected as the Labor candidate for ward 4 of the Blacktown City Council, resulting in his election to that council in 1987. He applied himself to the job of local councillor—as members today have already indicated— in the same manner as he did as a State member. Like everything else, he did it with great gusto. In 1991 it was a great day for everybody when he became the mayor of the City of Blacktown.
In the lead-up to the 1995 general election a number of issues that arose, which I will not talk about here, led to the need to select a new Labor candidate for the seat of St Marys, a neighbouring seat. Only two branches of the Mount Druitt electorate were composite with the St Mary's electorate, namely Mount Druitt and Mount Druitt North. We all encouraged Jim to run, although he was to some extent seeking election to a seat outside his own area. Most of the seat was outside even the local government area of Blacktown. In a rank and file ballot, Jim won easily, and was elected to the Parliament at the 1995 general election.
When making notes for the church eulogy, I found that time frames do not allow you to say everything. Today, a larger number of speakers will have a chance to paint perhaps a broader picture of Jim Anderson. I have been impressed with what has been said here so far today. At the church I was able to talk about Jim and Kathleen as a team. Whether it was fighting the BHP steel mill, or their prowess on the dance floor, which I acknowledge again today, they were a formidable team, complementing each other no matter what task they undertook.
I could recount yet again many of our conversations or the issues in which we were both interested, including our highly charged march into this place, with nearly all the Caucus under police guard during that volatile day of protest about workers compensation reform. But I have already referred to that, and will not go into the detail of it here today. Rather, I would like to add a few new glimpses into Jim's life. For one, he loved sport. I note that in a job application he said:
Sport is very important to me. In the past I have actively participated in soccer, tennis, squash, golf and athletics.
He mentioned that he had held administrative positions in the Rooty Hill Tennis Club, the squash club and Rooty Hill RSL Youth Club for periods of up to 10 years. Kathleen recently showed me a newspaper photo taken in 1960 of Jim kneeling in the front row of a soccer team. It was titled "Patrick Sarsfield G.A.C. Senior Football Champs 1960". Jim looked every bit like his son Robert. The article explained to me his interest in the game of soccer—or football as it is called in Ireland and Britain. In the English league he followed Nottingham Forest. I do not know why a lad from Belfast would support Nottingham Forest! That was always the subject of some banter, although he did not really disagree with me when I suggested that it probably stemmed from a childhood interest in another rebel called Robin Hood. I think that could be very close to the truth. The Irish are always backing the rebels!
I will miss the banter that we shared from day to day. For example, when Nottingham Forest played my team, Burnley, one of us would ring the other and give him a bit of a stir, whichever side won. I do the same to the honourable member for Port Stephens, who follows Arsenal. In a different vein, I was campaigning at 138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Hillston for the honourable member for Murray-Darling when I received a call on my mobile phone from Jim Anderson. He said, "Have you heard any results?" I said, "How would I get football results from England in the Western Division?" He said, "Burnley just defeated premiership side Fulham in an FA Cup fourth round." Jim had no interest in that game, but he knew that I would be happy about the result and he took time out from his busy schedule to ring me in the far-western part of New South Wales to tell me. That is the sort of bloke he was.
Everyone has a skeleton in the cupboard, something they want to hide. I was never game to publicly do this to Jim, but I will do it today. When he first came to Australia, through his workmates he became interested in rugby league. Unfortunately, his workmates did not do him any favours. He was obviously in bad company because he became a Manly supporter. As he was a new arrival to Australia he did not realise the implications of being a Western Sydney resident and supporting Manly. However, he did come to realise that dark side of his personality. At one of my annual dinners news came through that Parramatta had defeated Manly—always a result worthy of mention and note. I could not help myself. I went to the microphone, interrupted proceedings, gave the result and ended, I thought good-humouredly, with commiserations to Jim Anderson, who was sitting in the audience. The next day he admonished me most severely. He was very upset and concerned that I did that in front of 300 people. I said, "What's the problem? You're a very proud Manly supporter." He said, "Yes, but I don’t want anyone around here to know it." He was certainly more open about his support of Nottingham Forest.
Finally in relation to sport, Jim joined the hardest and toughest game of all when he became a member of the Parliamentary Bowls Club. I can indicate to the new members of the House that it is no place for wimps. Jim and Kath attended the bowls carnival every year but, because of his commitments, I could not get Jim to play regularly throughout the year. This lack of practice sometimes had an effect on his form. Members of the bowls group know of my pleas to play more often between carnivals—not just to improve their form but, more seriously, for relaxation, some mild exercise and the opportunity to meet different people around their constituencies.
Doug Shedden, a former member of this House, likes me to tell this story. From time to time I was terribly rude to Jim. After one game of bowls, in front of a group of people sitting around a table, I said to Jim, "I think the reason Jim has some problems with bowls is because, coming from Belfast, it is probably the only round object he has ever thrown that did not have a fuse in it." When a letter from Sinn Fein was read out at the funeral, I felt nervous about that joke. I was very pleased to stand with Jim when we collected the trophy in the Best Rink category at the bowls carnival in Adelaide in January this year. He was the lead bowler. Modesty prevents me from telling the House who was the skipper of the team.
Between the banter, the laughs and the good times, I could not but be impressed with the calibre of Jim Anderson and his dedication to his family and his origins. He did not even drink. Someone once told me that Jim was the only Irishman who did not sing and drink. I do not know the full story but I understand that at the age of 12 Jim gave a commitment to his father that he would never touch the stuff, and he never did. I know that Kath, like all of us, enjoys a small glass of Baileys Irish Cream from time to time, but even at a celebration or when proposing a toast Jim would never touch a drop of alcohol, maintaining the commitment he gave to his father at the age of 12. That says a great deal about the fellow. As to his commitment to his job, there was no- one better on the ground as a local member. Other speakers have spoken about that and I will not repeat what they have said.
Jim worked on too many projects for me to mention here. Some of them have already been referred to: the steel mill, the senior high school, Chifley College, the University of Western Sydney, and Mount Druitt courthouse, which will be established during this term of government. Jim has fingerprints on all of them. There was no issue too small for him to take up and no project too big for him to tackle. In conclusion, I will quote another friend I met in this place called Bob Harrison, a former member for Kiama. Bob was a philosophical fellow about politics. He said that in politics you make false friends and true enemies. I am not one to claim that Bob Harrison would ever be wrong, but if Jim Anderson did not prove him wrong, he was certainly an exception to the rule. Jim was a great friend of many of us here, myself included.
Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.05 p.m.]: I join with all members of the House in this condolence motion for Jim Anderson. On election day, like all candidates across the State, I toured the polling places in my electorate. I started at Pymble Public School, which was opened by the Australian Labor Party in the 1940s, when my leader rang me to tell me that Jim Anderson had died. I was sitting here thinking about that day. It is the only booth where I cannot recall the party workers I met. I remember going in and buying a raffle ticket from the Scouts, but I have no idea who was handing out the how- to-vote cards for me, such was the shock of hearing the news and the shock that was evident in the voice of the Leader of the Opposition, who that day went on to pay tribute to Jim Anderson. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 139
Jim and I were elected to this place in the same year and we had dealings inside and outside this Chamber. In particular, we met most frequently at functions with the Australian-Irish community. I particularly want to acknowledge the Lansdowne Club, which is an Australian-Irish business community based in Sydney. I was introduced to the club by former "Senator", Bryan Vaughan, and Liberal upper House Deputy Leader, the Hon. John Ryan, and I continue to be members. The Lansdowne Club is most famous amongst its business network for its annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon. I can indicate to the honourable member for Mount Druitt that it was not until his contribution today that I realised that Jim had attended those luncheons, which were normally over by 2 o'clock—that is, 2 a.m.—and, unlike the rest of us, had not touched a drop of alcohol.
In the traditions of the Irish and the Lansdowne Club, the St. Patrick's Day luncheon this year was held on Friday 14 March, not Monday 17 March. Jim and his wife were present. Peter Brennan, a constituent of mine and president of the Lansdowne Club, was present at the funeral at St Aidans. He emailed me to say that he was shocked and stunned by the news of Jim’s death and that he always found him to be a wonderful human being. I do not know anyone in this place who would disagree with that. I promised Peter Brennan and his wife that I would acknowledge the regret of the Lansdowne Club at Jim's passing and its appreciation of his efforts and consistent attendance at the many functions they had organised.
I joined the Hon. John Ryan and the Federal member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly, at St Aidans for Jim's funeral. On my drive to Rooty Hill I wondered whether it would be an Irish funeral or a Labor funeral. After I took my place, picked up the order of service and saw the name of the priest presiding, I realised I was in for a Labor funeral. Even a Tory like me understands the antecedents of Pat Colbourne and his father's interesting history with the New South Wales Labor Party during those difficult times of Jack Lang's involvement with that great party in this place.
I have not been to many funerals for members from either side of politics at which tributes were given not just by personal friends but also by a neighbouring State member, the local Federal member and someone on behalf of the local Labor branches. It was a great tribute to Jim. Father Pat also gave Jim a wonderful tribute. I will remember his comments that Jim was a little man, but he was not small. He talked about his courage and his conviction, and the respect with which he was held in the community. We often talk about our political opponents in this place. Thankfully, when the more sensible ones of us leave this Chamber, we have a drink with those so-called political opponents. Often one’s political opponents are found on one’s own side of the House. But I can say without fear of contradiction that Jim Anderson had no enemies or opponents in this place. How could you be opposed to a person who always greeted you so warmly wherever you met him, whatever the time, whatever the place and whatever the circumstance? The first reading in the service held for Jim at St Aidans was from the second letter to Timothy, which said, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." There could be no truer eulogy for Jim Anderson.
Mr KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [5.10 p.m.]: Kathleen, Rhona, Robert and family, as I was sitting here waiting to speak I was thinking that this will be only the second time that I will have spoken in a condolence debate. The first time was for another Irishman, Tony Doyle, a dear friend. I often think that one’s feelings on such occasions are best kept private, but I know Kathleen that for you and Jimmy and the family, your kids and grandkids, this time is an important part of your family's journey. There is no coincidence in the dedication by the Premier on election night of Labor's victory and his announcement today of five scholarships for young kids in Western Sydney. Both those very grand and proper gestures are opportunities for people whom Jim and so many of us seek to represent: working-class families from Western Sydney, who benefit under Labor governments. That is why we are here and that is what we fundamentally believe in: providing an opportunity for those who seek it through education and not privilege.
As I was listening to Richard Amery and others eulogise about Jim's involvement with young people and his Herculean efforts for the University of Western Sydney I realised that Jim would appreciate the scholarships as much as anything as recognition of his commitment to the Australian Labor Party and its representation of people from working-class backgrounds. In every sense Jim's victory is his struggle from Northern Ireland into this Chamber, where many of us still scratch our heads and wonder how we ended up here; how did we get to this point where we, among our community, are chosen to represent and seek to do good things? All of us no doubt recall the twinkle in Jim’s eye, his Irish lilt, his sparkle and humour, and equally his dogged determination to get things done, always for the right reasons.
I remember four things about Jim that will remain with me. The first was his commitment to the young ones, to give them a chance to learn and grow. One night he dragged me into a seminar he had organised for 140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Young Labor members from Western Sydney to talk to them about my background, how I had joined the Labor Party when I was 14 and that I had to lie about my age to join. Later, I realised that I was part of the George Paciullo stack, but that is another story for the annals of the Liverpool South Branch of the Labor Party. I will not go into that today.
Second was Jim’s commitment to getting things done for his community. As a Minister I was well aware of his determination to pursue issues. Anyone who received representations from Jimmy Anderson would understand how fair dinkum he was. He was well researched with a thorough understanding of the issues and a determination never to leave without a commitment to an improvement one step along the way.
Third was his determination to get you to attend a function that he wanted you to attend. I remember the night I was slated to be at the Gaels club, one of Jim's stomping grounds in Richard Amery's electorate. It was the night that either Lucy or Hamish, one of my two kids, was born. But I still had to front up and give my speech. Until Richard mentioned it this evening, I did not realise that Jimmy did not touch a drink. But I can say that Maurie O'Sullivan, who was sitting next to Jimmy that night, certainly did. I remember having to leave very quickly to get from Richard's electorate to Liverpool Hospital for the birth of one of my children. I can assure members that you would not have wanted not to front up at an event at which Jimmy Anderson expected you!
The fourth matter is not about Jim, but it was for Jim. Again, I suspect Maurie O'Sullivan was involved. Those of us who were at St Aidans will always remember the feeling of our hair standing up on the back of our necks when we heard "Three cheers for Jimmy Anderson!" Only someone with an Irish brogue could replicate that call. It will stay with us forever. I suspect that all of us liked Jimmy Anderson, and in this place that is unusual. We all liked Jimmy Anderson and we still do, but now we have to get used to his not being here. We will remember him.
Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [5.17 p.m.]: I join with other members in paying tribute to Jim Anderson, a fellow member of Parliament from north-western Sydney. My relationship with Jim goes back to when I was first elected to this place. He was Mayor of Blacktown at the time and I had some considerable dealings with him, although he was on the other side of Windsor Road out of Baulkham Hills Shire. Whenever I had dealings with him he was always straightforward and courteous, despite the fact that he came not just from the other side of Windsor Road, but from the other side of the political fence. He struck me as being such a conscientious and compassionate man that I was not at all surprised when, in 1994, he became the endorsed Labor candidate for St Marys. In 1995 he won that seat handsomely with almost 70 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.
Jim was lucky to have been first elected in March 1995 when the Carr Government first came to power. He never had to sit on this side of the House and he never had to endure the barbs and insults of Opposition. Those members on the Government side of the House who have spent some time in Opposition would understand what I mean. In his inaugural speech he spoke about unemployment in his electorate, which was then running at an extraordinarily high 18 per cent. That percentage has come down quite considerably in the past few years. He was passionate about the topic and spoke about it on many occasions during his eight years in this House. Jim was particularly concerned about youth unemployment, which, as he said in his inaugural speech, was running at an extraordinary 30 per cent in his electorate.
We have heard about Jim's interest in education, but he was passionate about youth in general. I was enormously impressed when, in 1999, he organised a mini drug summit of student representative councils [SRC] from schools in his electorate. I guess that members of the SRC of schools would be the kids you would least expect to be involved in illicit drug use, but he felt strongly enough about it and the young people in his electorate that he brought them together to work out some local solutions for the problem in his electorate. To give you an idea of his focus on youth, on several occasions he arranged for groups of special needs children to visit Australia's Wonderland. From all reports I gather that they had a wow of a time. Indeed, those actions were clearly the initiative of an uncommon and caring individual.
Another popular theme pursued by Jim—it has also been an interest of mine—was the upgrade of Windsor Road. Jim and I discussed the issue on many occasions and debated it in this Chamber. We did not see eye to eye on what was needed or about the Government's then commitment to the upgrade. However, once again, Jim was unfailingly calm in his demeanour and always measured and courteous in his approach. That was Jim to a T. 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 141
As Deputy Government Whip in this place—a position I am sure Jim won because of his popularity with the caucus—there were times when Jim’s patience must have been sorely tried, but we would never have known that from his phlegmatic demeanour. I can still see him with George Thompson, pen poised, counting the numbers during hundreds of divisions. Sometimes those divisions seemed interminable because one member or another had not turned up. I must admit that I did see the occasional furrow on Jim's brow at those times.
As honourable members on this side of the Chamber have said, Jim was always quick to smile. He would greet members of the Opposition by name and was always quick to display the politeness that appeared to be a natural extension of his gentle Northern Irish brogue. I suspect that his voice was raised more than once when in 1998 the number of seats in this place was reduced from 99 to 93. One of the seats abolished was St Marys. Newspaper articles of the day give an idea of the bitter struggle that went on within the Australian Labor Party as the game of musical seats was played out in Western Sydney. Ultimately, Jim emerged victorious and in a seat that could have been tailor made for him. It has been said before, but at the time I remarked, that it was ironic that he should occupy the seat of Londonderry. A parallel would be someone like Taffy Llewellyn or Rhodri Jones occupying the seat of Swansea or Menai. Certainly, the rest of us cannot claim the same degree of ownership of our electorates. I hesitate to suggest who might take over the seat of The Hills.
I first heard the news of Jim's death on 22 March as I was preparing to leave home to do the rounds of my booths. I caught only the tail end of the news and did not hear who had died, only that it was a candidate for Londonderry, and that that would mean a by-election would be held for the seat. At 11 a.m. I heard that it was the sitting member, Jim Anderson, who had died, and that was a considerable shock. Election campaigning is one of the most stressful activities that anyone can engage in—a time when one eats all the wrong foods, sleeps only a few hours a night and lives on adrenalin. All members understand what I am talking about. In fact, I suspect that only those who have been candidates understand the demands. I assume that that extraordinary level of stress ultimately proved to be Jim's nemesis.
I extend to his wife, Kathleen, his daughter, Rhona, and his son, Robert, my sincere condolences. As has been said, Jim will be sorely missed.
Mr SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [5.24 p.m.]: Condolence motions are very sad occasions, but they also present an opportunity for members to express their affection for a member who has passed away, particularly one who has passed away in office. Jim Anderson's death is a tragic blow to his family, the Australian Labor Party, his colleagues and the people of Londonderry. His death on election day was a great shock to us all.
People have correctly stated that Jim was everyone's friend, and I endorse that wholeheartedly. He was affable and hardworking, cheerful and effective, friendly and professional. Richard Amery referred to the many discussions that he had about Belfast with his former driver, Andrew Donaghey. Members may not be aware that Andrew is the younger brother of my driver, Joel Donaghey, who, of course, also hails from Belfast. Richard recounted some of the experiences that Jim had in Belfast. Often when enjoying a bit of down time, Ministers chat with their drivers. I have asked Joel what life was like for him as a young fellow in Belfast. His responses suggest that Jim's chats with Richard must have been very interesting.
I travelled around the electorate on occasion with Jim, Richard Amery, Charlie Lowles and Alan Pendleton. I would ask Richard who was the best mayor of Blacktown. Members may recall that the Speaker is a former Mayor of Blacktown. I am sure he will not mind hearing that Jim Anderson would immediately respond to my question, "I was!" I told him that I hoped he had told John Aquilina that, and he replied that he was sure the honourable member would concur. Richard and I would leave him, Alan Pendleton and Charlie Lowles to their argument. It was always amusing.
Jim was a very effective Mayor of Blacktown as well as an effective local member. He attended meetings, participated in delegations, presented petitions, and requested Ministers to visit his community. He was tireless in this work for his constituents. Like most Ministers, I visited his electorate and did everything I could to answer his inquiries on behalf of his community. Jim deserves all the credit going his way. He has left a great legacy to his community. A few weeks ago I was in his electorate at his invitation to see some locally built railway equipment. His pride in the company concerned and the skills of its work force was extraordinary. The majority of the company's employees did not live in his electorate, and it is tempting as a member of Parliament to concentrate on the residential sections of one's electorate rather than the industrial sections. However, Jim took great pride in the company's work and he wanted to ensure that his constituents knew that it had the skill and capacity to produce high-quality technical equipment. 142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
Jim Anderson took his role very seriously. In more recent times he was Deputy Government Whip. He was always smiling, and we will sorely miss him and his terrific accent. Of us all, Richard will take Jim’s death the hardest given that he knew Jim better and was closer to him than other members were. I extend my condolences to Jim's family. We have the highest respect and regard for him. He leaves a very strong legacy of achievement. People will be able to look back and say, "Jim Anderson made a difference; he added value and he left the place better for having been here."
Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.27 p.m.]: I am privileged to speak in this condolence motion for our late friend and colleague James Anderson. As a member for Western Sydney, and having been born and bred in the western suburbs—at Wentworthville and in the Parramatta area—I believe there is something unique about Western Sydney and the members who represent it. I do not think that any of the local members in this Chamber would be an exception. Jim Anderson was no different; in fact, he was a beacon on the hill as far as loyalty, commitment and integrity were concerned. He was a fair dinkum, Aussie-Irish person. He always had a smile and was good for a joke. In the last Parliament I was the coalition spokesperson for Western Sydney and in that capacity I attended many functions in the region. Jim was always at those functions. It did not matter where they were held or how many people attended, Jim was always on hand representing the Australian Labor Party and his community. That was the measure of the man.
Jim Anderson was a man who stood for family, community and party, and I think those last three words express it all. He was first elected in 1995 as the member for St Marys. Following the 1999 redistribution the Carr Labor team was elected after seven years of a Coalition Government, and Jim became the member for Londonderry. Having said all those things about Jim, I should also add that he was no shrinking violet but, rather, a man of guts and integrity who would not necessarily call a spade a spade. He had a unique mixture of humility, kindness and compassion yet he could put his message across.
Earlier this evening I referred to Jim's inaugural speech, in which he made some interesting observations. He was concerned about the tragedy of unemployment that existed in western Sydney during the 1990s. Unemployment anywhere is a problem, but in the western part of Sydney there were some very dark and bleak days of despair. He referred also to the Mamre project and the way in which it had been disbanded. Jim stated:
However, given the contentious issues arising during the last few weeks about funding for this project, and watching the Maroubra mauler, alias the Premier, tear into the Opposition every day on contentious subjects, it is like the slaughter of the Holy innocents revisited, which is not a pretty sight for anyone—and as I am a devout coward—
I would not agree with that, but that is what he said at the time—
I decided to handle the subject another way.
He certainly had a unique turn of expression which enabled him to get his message across. I think the expression "Maroubra mauler" is the most interesting—one which the conservative side of politics would not necessarily accept, but no doubt many other members of the community would. That extract reflects Jim's sense of purpose and commitment, and the humourous and non-malicious manner in which he went about his activities. It was a mark of Jim's integrity that there was no malice in him. He was fair dinkum, sincere, and did his job well. During his inaugural speech he also referred to the support that people had given him in his endeavours to win election. It is almost ironic that he said:
In preparation for election day, I had a number of volunteers turning up at my home every morning looking for work, so I had no difficulty in staffing my campaign office and organising working bees to make up sandwich boards and street posters. For their efforts, I thank my State electorate conference committee.
Of course, it was election day this year when he was summoned to a higher calling.
We should all pause to consider the enormous pressures that each member of Parliament faces on election day. The Premier and other honourable members who have preceded me in speaking to this condolence motion have said that members work for some weeks prior to election day. We work not only for some weeks but right throughout the four years of our term. It all culminates on election day and the reality is that members of Parliament know that they could blow it, to use a colloquial expression, on that one day if things do not go the right way. When members leave their homes early on election day they are full of apprehension—almost fear and trepidation—because they do not know what is around the corner. No-one knows.
Politics is a very volatile business. Most members believe that having won their seat once, they should retain it. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty, and the pressures that would have been felt by Jim Anderson— 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 143 indeed, by all honourable members—were enormous. It is regrettable that it was probably that pressure that pushed him over the edge. Members of the public simply do not appreciate that election day and the lead-up to the election are quite traumatic experiences. People do not realise the pressures that members of Parliament endure during the lead-up to an election and throughout the day-to-day business during their term. Being a member of Parliament is a calling or a commitment; it is not a job. I have no doubt that that was the philosophy that motivated Jim Anderson.
He served on Blacktown City Council from 1987 to 1995 and was Mayor from 1991 to 1995—a role also performed by you, Mr Speaker. If I recall correctly, you were the youngest Mayor of Blacktown. Both you and Jim served the community well. One should appreciate the great community in Blacktown. It is a great place. It is an area of diverse multicultural communities, and the people who live there are fair dinkum; they are interested in their families and their community. All those values were reflected in the efforts and commitment of Jim Anderson. Alex Mitchell wrote of his amusement when, following a redistribution, Jim, a devout Catholic, represented the electorate of Londonderry—the name given by Protestant Ulstermen to the predominantly Catholic city of Derry. Jim acquitted himself well in Londonderry and won with a resounding victory at the 1999 election. Jim was a true family man. His life revolved around his family. He stated in his inaugural speech:
I could go on for some considerable time thanking people, and I do thank all the people who worked for me but it would be remiss for me not to mention the support that I received from my colleague Richard Amery, the member for Mount Druitt and Minister for Agriculture... Last I offer my sincere appreciation to my family; to my son, Robert, who is always there when I need him, and to my daughter, Rhona, likewise—
I know that this has already been referred to, but it should be said again—
There is an old Irish saying that behind every good men there is a better woman. In my case that is quite true because without my wife, Kathleen, I would have achieved nothing. Her support in my every endeavour has been absolute. No-one has worked harder, longer and more effectively than Kathleen Anderson. To Kathleen I am deeply indebted, more than I could ever acknowledge.
That is indicative of a man who was perfectly honest and frank, a man who showed love and affection for his wife and family, who had supported him for so long. Jim Anderson has left this Chamber, but his commitment, dedication and concern for his calling will continue forever in the hearts of many thousands of Western Sydney people who would be privileged to say, "I knew Jim Anderson. He was a true friend."
There is something about the Labor Party and the commitment of its members, and there is something about the tradition of the Labor Party, that even an observer from the conservative side of politics must acknowledge. I recently had the sad experience of visiting my late father-in-law in hospital. He had been a Salvation Army officer for many years. I married a girl from Lithgow so I thought that all the signs that my wife's father voted for the Australian Labor Party would be evident, but I was never told. When that 88-year-old man was in hospital, wearing an oxygen mask, a member of his family said, "I don’t know whether Dad is really quite with it." So I decided to ask him some questions. He responded well to three questions and I thought that was pretty good. For the next question I looked directly at him, despite the oxygen mask, and I said, "Lang was wrong." As quick as a flash he said, "Lang was right!" That great Labor tradition never dies, and it will continue as long as people who have the same beliefs as Jim Anderson are members of this Chamber. Members of Parliament, we honour our late colleague, Jim Anderson MP: in God's care.
Mr STEWART (Bankstown) [5.38 p.m.]: I join my colleagues in paying tribute to a very special person—a great friend, a great person and a great member of this Parliament, Jim Anderson. I offer my condolences to Jim's family. I listened to the comments made by the honourable member for Mount Druitt and reflected upon some of the comments he made about the experiences he shared with Jim. I knew Jim for approximately 12 years. Honourable members and guests will probably be able to tell from my physique that I mainly got to know Jim through participation in the parliamentary bowls team. This is the first time I have admitted publicly that I, too, am a member of the parliamentary bowls team.
I often had occasion to deal with Jim through our regular bowls exercises and the intensity of programs that were put in place to meet the standards that Richard required. Certainly in pre-match training, which usually involved having a couple of schooners while Jim had his usual Coke or diet squash, we got to know each other very well. I recall that my very first bowls experience was with Jim. At the time, as always, Jim offered advice. He said to me, "Son, I think you're meant to bowl underarm." I heeded his advice, which helped to correct my bowls stroke. We had some great times during our bowls days, which gave us an opportunity to break away from the routine and intensity of this House and to really get to know each other as friends. 144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
As has been said, Jim was a true gentleman, someone whom everyone had kind words to say about, because that is the only way you could describe him. When the grumpy old men in this Parliament got a front- page run, Jim Anderson's name was initially on that list. But I think the papers were too embarrassed to say that Jim could be a grumpy person, because he was never like that. He endeared himself to everyone, including the media, which never had a bad word to say about him. Early in my political career I was struggling to survive as a local member of Parliament, and Jim offered me some advice. He said, "In front of you is the Opposition and behind you is the enemy." I guess in some ways I experienced that as I developed my political career and made my stamp within the Labor Party.
At the time I had to recruit members, because Jim told me, "Son, if you're going to stay in this show, you're going to have to match what they're doing." So I hastily went out and recruited 240 members into the Labor Party in about a week and a half. I thought that was pretty good. When I came back Jim asked, "How many has the other bloke got?" I said, "About 460." He said, "You're halfway there." Of course, it has become the infamous Lakemba day branch—which never got a charter, so it never became a branch. But I certainly had Jim instructing me in the background, coaching me and revving me up. In retrospect I can tell you that if it was not for that exercise I would not be here today. Jim was always able to add that vibrant tenacity: he egged you on, you listened, and you did it.
About 2½ years ago Jim and his wife, Kathleen, my family and I undertook a trip to Egypt with the Speaker. I hasten to say that we paid for ourselves—and Jim was also keen to make that point. We had a great time over a couple of weeks. We enjoyed the sights of such an ancient culture, and had some interesting times. Wherever we went we were chased by hawkers. As soon as we got out of the bus, 30 or 40 people would flock around us and try to sell us anything from their mum to a pyramid. We had to try to work our way around that. While we were trying to walk away from these people and get back onto the bus to get away from the intensity of the situation, Jim Anderson made friends with them all. Within five minutes they were scratching their heads, wondering, "What's this all about? We're supposed to be selling something." I recall Jim sitting down with these hawkers one day and having a drink of water with them because he felt sorry for them standing out in the sun. That is the bloke we are talking about today. His spirit, his vibrancy and his personality engendered people to see the good in others, and to see the good in themselves as well.
Another interesting anecdote made its way into Column 8. I refer to the famous rat with the gold tooth. Diane Beamer looks away with a smile as I say that, because she recalls the momentum that it caused in the Parliament. I managed to find somewhere a big, ugly rubber toy rat. I brought it into the Parliament because I thought there may have been a hidden metaphor in this rat somewhere, although we could not quite work out how. Jim asked if he could borrow it for one night, and he diligently brought it back the next day. He had painted one tooth gold—as we all know, Jim was very diligent; he would not miss painting the edges—and it became famous as the rat with the gold tooth. It was symbolic of the sorts of pressures that we as members of Parliament might endure in this unusual job. There it stood symbolically on a shelf in the Government Whip's room.
One dark morning we all arrived early to take on our role here, and discovered that the rat with the gold tooth was missing. No-one could work out how that could have happened, but it was clear that our rat with the gold tooth had been stolen. Jim decided to take the case to Column 8. And sure enough, Column 8 ran a story on the rat with the gold tooth: what happened, why did it happen, whom did it represent, and was it on CCTV? That did the trick, because by next morning when we all arrived, the rat with the gold tooth was back on the shelf. I am very pleased to say in Jim's fond memory that we still have that rat. It is packed away at the moment, but I think we should bring it out just for Jim.
The following is a true story. One night recently I had a dream about Jim—as I guess a few of us are doing, trying to come to grips with the fact that he has now gone. In the dream, as usual Jim was chastising me—in a friendly way, but shaking the finger. I cannot remember why he was chastising me, because you do not remember the substance of a dream. The very next day I received a call from Ray Hadley on national radio. Ray Hadley asked me if I was Mohammed Mustafa Khalid and not Tony Stewart, and went through a rendition of who I really was. As we know, I am Tony Stewart, not Mohammed Mustafa Khalid. I am very proud to be Tony Stewart, having been born Anthony Paul Stewart. Having said that, it was Jim's shaking finger that I should have paid attention to: something was about to happen. The bugger is still watching me and sending me messages.
Like everyone else, I was extremely shocked to hear about Jim's death. It was Diane Beamer who rang me at 8 o'clock in the morning. At first I thought it was a wicked joke, but tragically it was not. The last time I 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 145 spoke to Jim was the day before he died—the day before the election. I rang him in the afternoon and wished him all the best for his election victory and an historic third-term Labor Government, which has now come to fruition. But, of course, God chose a very different course for Jim, dramatically bringing home to all of us our vulnerability to fate and the need to live our earthly life to the full—and Jim did that.
Jim's death, like the death of my father some years ago, became a test of my faith. I could not help but think that Jim's time had come prematurely, unfairly, and that Jim's family and friends had been cheated because a good husband, a good father, a good friend and a good community representative had been lost forever, before his time. But in trying to make sense of this and upon reflection, I now know and understand that in Jim's relatively short innings he achieved a hell of a lot—in fact, more than most men will ever achieve in their lives.
In this context, perhaps his death has not cheated us. In the seventeenth century Jean de la Tontaine said, "Death does not take the wise man by surprise; he is always prepared to leave." In every way Jim Anderson, despite his early roll call, was prepared to meet his maker, and left behind a tremendous legacy. Jim has left his family, his friends, his local community, the Labor Party and this Parliament with a fine legacy of achievement that leaves a framework and foundation that we are all proud of. In conclusion, I would like to quote from an Eric Bogle song. I used to try to play a little bit of guitar. Late at night I used to play a few Irish ballads for Jim and others. Eric Bogle's words remind me of an occasion when Jim and I were sitting on a boat on the Nile River, cruising along with the wind in our faces, an occasion which I remember fondly. Eric Bogle wrote:
But to every sailor, comes time to drop anchor Haul in the sails, and make the lines fast You deep water dreamer, your journey is over You're safe in the harbour at last.
Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [5.49 p.m.]: To be sure, to be sure, I think Jim was a grand fellow, with that little impish twinkle in his eye. I add my condolences to the family. In his position as Deputy Whip Jim was one of the first regular contacts that a new member has with the running of the Parliament. I always found Jim approachable and friendly, and he gave good advice. He was always there to say, "That was a good speech, John," and pat me on the back. I asked Jim, "Why Deputy Whip?" He was the only person who told me he liked to listen to everyone's speeches. He liked to sit in the House and listen to what people had to say; he much preferred to be in the House than in his room on the twelfth floor. Jim enjoyed the dynamics of the business of the House and he was part of the smooth running of the Fifty-second Parliament. When the Leader of the House would change the program at the last minute, Jim would step in to ensure it ran smoothly.
Jim and I had lots in common. We were both immigrants, Jim from Londonderry and me from Hammersmith, London. We followed English soccer and both had a local government background; both old, grey mayors. We both did well in this country. Jim spoke forcefully for his electorate and was very proud of his community. He became an integral part of the development and fabric of that society. Jim liked to travel. As chairman of the Port Stephens Sister Cities Committee I regularly co-ordinate cultural visits to overseas sister cities. I told Jim that going to Japan was the best cultural tour we had ever arranged, and he showed a lot of interest. I told Jim we were going to Japan in April 2002 and asked him whether he would like to come. I liked Jim, he never mucked me around. He said, "I will ask Kathleen and let you know." The next time I saw Jim, he said, "We are coming; when do you want the money?"
Jim and Kath fitted seamlessly into the tour, with one or two exceptions. In that two weeks a firm friendship was formed. Jim said to me, "I will stay in the background, but if you want me to do anything, just let me know." However, it was hard for Jim to stay in the background. Today, as I have listened to other members, I thought, "What a wonderful celebration of Jim's life; what a wonderful matrix is appearing." Jim suffered from sleep apnoea, so we took his machine with us around Japan. As Richard Amery said, bombs and Jim seemed to go together—the machine looked like a bomb. No Japanese airport security guard had ever seen a sleep apnoea machine and, in all honesty, it looked like a bomb: it was in a tight black case and had tubes with caps and electric leads protruding. Each time we went through airport security the machine had to be taken from its case and inspected. I wondered, if someone were to be arrested, who would it be? As the tour guide, that would have caused me a lot of problems, because I did not speak Japanese.
When the tour first reached Japan the instructions were quite simple: I got the passports and the Shinkasen tickets and booked for the 25 or 30 people on the tour. The travel agent spoke English so I obtained tickets for the rest of the trip. I told our group there were only two rules: first, if someone was not on the train 146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 when it left I would not have time to make other bookings, so enjoy Japan and I would see them at the airport when we fly back; and, second, when we got to Tokyo station, stick together, because we have to go a long way through the underground system. When the train from Tateyama pulled into the terminal at Tokyo station we had to go up about five escalators and through 1½ kilometres of tunnel.
The train pulled into the station, I gathered everyone together, and we set off in single file. That very busy station is used by millions of people a year, everyone walking in single file. Half way through the journey a call came from Kath down the back, "We've lost Jim." It was a bit difficult to stop half way up the escalator so we continued to the top and gathered together. I told everyone to stay together and I went back to find Jim. I backtracked half a kilometre but could not find him. I turned around to go back to the group and every time I came to an intersection there were five different ways to go. I did not know what to do. Apparently Jim had decided that the leader of the single file was moving a bit too slowly, but as the pace was set by an 83-year-old lady on our tour, we had to walk relatively slowly.
Jim had pulled out of the line and headed off in the general direction of our destination. That was fine, but no-one in our group saw him go. Jim had reached an intersection about 100 or 200 metres down the corridor and realised that no-one else was with him. I will set the scene: Jim was standing in a major intersection of the Tokyo underground railway station, facing towards Shinkasen. A Japanese gentleman walked up to him and asked, "Are you Jim? A whole lot of people back there are looking for you." Maybe that sort of thing happened to Jim frequently. Jim turned around and came back to us. Family dynamics then came into play. Jim was put in his place by Kath and then back in the line, and the tour continued. That is one of my most vivid memories of Jim. I learnt something about Jim that day: he could be good, but not for long. He was a grand mate and I will miss him.
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [5.56 p.m.]: I add my condolences to those extended by other members of this House to Jim's family. As with many here I was horrified on the day of the election to be told of Jim's death. I remember putting the finishing touches to a polling booth at Liverpool West when I was rung by Damian O'Connor at about 7.30 that morning to tell me what had happened, because he knew I was a mate of Jim. I knew Jim before he was elected to this place; we met when he served on Blacktown council and I was serving on Liverpool council, through our mutual involvement in the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils [WSROC]. Jim was fairly influential in my becoming and remaining the Chair of WSROC. I was always very grateful to him for that because I could see no personal political benefit accruing to him from his support of me. Indeed, I could imagine a degree of difficulty for him through some of the people who would normally support him and oppose me. I had a degree of regard, respect, and friendship for him dating from that early time.
However, today I do not want to talk about WSROC; I want to record a tribute to Jim on behalf of those who support the aims and principles of Irish republicanism. I have been asked to do that particularly by Paddy Gorman and other members of Australian Aid for Ireland [AAI], a pro-republican group in Australia. Paddy and a number of members of AAI attended Jim's funeral and were all deeply saddened by his death. Jim was quite an important part of a number of AAI activities. In early 1999 he was present at the AAI function for Gerry Adams that was held at Randwick. I was master of ceremonies that night and I remember having some fun at Jim's expense. The function was held before the State election of 1999. At the function I pointed out that Jim was, quite appropriately, the sitting member for St Marys, but that fairly soon he would be contesting the forthcoming State election as the endorsed Labor candidate for the electoral district of Londonderry.
That was probably the only time in Jim's life that he was hissed by an audience of Irish Australians. Honour was quickly restored when it was pointed out that the Australian Labor Party had made an application to the State Electoral Office to rename the seat of Londonderry as Derry. Jim was then cheered. It is worth making the point that a number of members of this place have insisted on referring to Jim as the member for Derry rather than the member for Londonderry. Certainly when I have been in the Chair I always called him the member for Derry. After the 1999 election Jim and I co-hosted a number of functions for Sinn Fein visitors to Sydney. They included Cionnatih O Suilleabhain from Clonakilty Urban District Council in June 2000, and Martin McGuiness in December 2000. Martin was then Minister for Education in the powersharing executive, and a member of the Stormont Assembly, an abstentionist member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
Subsequently Jim and I co-hosted a function in this place with Mitchell McLachlan, the Chairman of Sinn Fein and also a member of the Stormont Assembly.He has been involved in a host of other AAI activities. As recently as September last year he co-hosted a fundraising function, with me, to help send some human rights reservists to Bogota to witness the trial processes being imposed on three Irishmen by the Colombian 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 147 government and the military and their American advisers. Another function I remember well that he attended, which was not organised by the AAI but had a contribution from them, was last year's Easter service at Waverley Cemetery, at the grave of Michael Dwyer. Probably inappropriately at the time, I remember interrupting Jim's very enthusiastic rendition of Faith of Our Fathers because I wanted to introduce him to the Mayor of Waverley—currently the honourable member for Coogee—who had just arrived. It is worth noting that at this Easter service this year quite a number of people mentioned with sadness the passing of Jim.
Of all the functions Jim was involved in with the AAI, I believe that the one he most enjoyed co- hosting, and the one he got the most satisfaction from, was the one held for Jim Neeson. Jimmy Neeson has a whole lot of claims to fame: amongst other things he runs Belfast's Black Taxis. Jim Anderson seemed to develop a real bond with Jim Neeson. When I was in Ireland last year I noted that the first person Jim Neeson asked me about was Jim Anderson and how was he doing. I remember Jim Neeson showering particularly effusive but very deserved praise on Jim Anderson when we were talking to Alex Maskey, the Sinn Fein Lord Mayor of Belfast.
Andrew Refshauge referred to a tribute to Jim Anderson that Martin McGuinness, who is a member of the House of Commons and is also Sinn Fein's chief negotiator in the peace process, delivered at Jim's funeral. Martin said:
It is with deep sadness that we learnt of the death of our friend and comrade Jim Anderson MP. His sudden death has come as a shock to all of us and will be greeted with great sadness and regret throughout the Republican community in Ireland.
On behalf of the Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle (National Executive), I extend our deepest sympathy to Jim's family, his wife Kathleen, son Robert, daughter Rhona, son-in-law Kevin and grandchildren Adam and Kiara.
I wish to pay tribute to Jim, a man who lived a life dedicated to the core principles of social justice, civil rights and Irish Unity.
If one thing stands out about Jim it's that he knew his own mind and he wasn't afraid to speak it. That is because Jim's politics were not just from the heart but from his raw experience growing up in West Belfast and his working life. He wasn't just a voice—he was an activist.
Jim embodied the true meaning of Republicanism. He dedicated his life not only to campaigning for justice for the people of Londonderry in NSW but also extended that quest for justice to Ireland.
Jim's support for Australian Aid for Ireland, his commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and its implementation contributed decisively to the Peace Process in Ireland. In fact, it is because of the risks which Jim and others were willing to take for peace that we have a Peace Process in Ireland today.
Jim Anderson will be missed but his strength, dedication and energy will live on in all those who commit themselves to living his ideals.
The politics of Ireland are probably always seen more simply, and certainly more safely, from Australia than they are for those who actually have to live in Belfast. Jim has spoken to me about some of the things that he and his family endured. Some of them are a lot more complicated than simply Orange versus Republican violence. That sort of environment inevitably breeds all sorts of complications. The one view that Jim had about it, though, was that he was happy to support anyone who was pursuing the Peace Process in English-occupied Ireland. For that I am delighted to be able to pay tribute to him, particularly on behalf of Australian Aid for Ireland. Over and above all that, of course, Jim was a particularly good bloke and there are not that many people in this place who can really be regarded as genuinely good blokes. Jimmy really was, and he will be sadly missed.
Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [6.03 p.m.]: I can say unequivocally that our beloved late colleague, the honourable member for Londonderry, Jim Anderson, was a person for whom members on both sides of the House had the utmost respect. Jim was not only a person of great depth but also a compassionate and understanding person. He was endowed with a very good sense of humour, which was just as well because that equipped him quite well to cope with all those Irish jokes—some of them quite cruel, I believe—which are bandied around everywhere. Possessed of a cheerful disposition and with all his other admirable characteristics it was indeed a pleasure to have known Jim Anderson.
On the eve of the recent elections I was preparing for what became a victory party at the Everglades Country Club at Woy Woy and I received a call on my mobile—which I had turned on for a change—and it was Jim Anderson. We had quite a nice conversation: Jim told me what had occurred during his campaign in the electorate of Londonderry and I told him what had gone on in Peats, and we wished one another well. Then of course it was with great sadness that I heard the next morning of Jim's untimely death. Jim's sudden passing was 148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 a very hard blow to his family, friends and parliamentary colleagues. But, knowing that Jim was Labor through and through, he would have been delighted with the outcome of those elections. It was a very moving tribute when the Premier dedicated Labor's victory to the memory of our late colleague Jim Anderson. I am sure the Premier's announcement that five scholarships will be awarded in Jim's memory would have delighted our late colleague.
Jim Anderson and I were elected to this House on the same day in 1995. We were allocated adjoining offices on the ninth floor. We served together on a number of parliamentary and caucus committees, and Jim always made a positive contribution to the work of all those committees. It therefore came as no surprise when Jim was appointed to the rather taxing task of Deputy Government Whip at the commencement of Labor's second term of office. Jim was a very approachable person and in his capacity as Deputy Whip he would go out of his way to assist members not only on this side of the House but also on the other side of the House in carrying out their parliamentary duties. The former member for Rockdale and former Government Whip, George Thompson, and Jim Anderson were, I believe, a formidable and competent combination. I believe we were most fortunate to be the beneficiaries of their services to this House during the last Parliament.
Following the 1999 elections, Jim and I moved offices from the ninth floor to the twelfth floor, and again we had adjoining offices. From time to time Jim would put his head in through the open door of my office and ask if I had the kettle on. We would then sit down over a cup of tea and discuss matters of State importance, or sometimes we would talk about that wonderful game of bowls. I can thank Jim Anderson for the fact that I ever took to the bowling greens at all. Some of my parliamentary colleagues might lament the fact that I did make that decision, but I must say that I never regretted it. Jim told me that if I joined the club I would certainly enjoy myself, and I must admit that I do. I thought Jim was quite a good bowler. We were both encouraged by our parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Mount Druitt, the Hon. Richard Amery, to play more frequently. I understand that Jim was doing exactly that until he was sadly and so suddenly taken from us.
Over the years my sister Clare has had the opportunity to meet and chat with Jim and his good wife, Kathleen, on a number of social occasions. These interactions have always been very pleasant. I know that Clare was as shocked and upset as I was when we heard the terrible news of Jim's passing. At Jim's final farewell on 27 March at St Aidans Church at Rooty Hill there were in attendance virtually hundreds of Jim's constituents from all walks of life. They had come to pay their last respects to their hardworking and popular local member. Outside the church I had the opportunity to speak with the captains and vice captains of Richmond High School and one of their teachers who had accompanied them. They all spoke glowingly of Jim's support for their school and I know they were very shocked at his sudden death. I could well understand that, as Jim was a great advocate of improving education opportunities in his electorate, whether at the primary, secondary, tertiary or technical level.
Jim was also a persistent and strong campaigner for the creation of more jobs in the western part of Sydney as he believed that it was a person's basic individual right to secure gainful employment. Jim was in every respect a very good and honourable person whom I unashamedly say I miss very much, but I know full well that he will be long and fondly remembered. I cannot imagine how much Jim is being missed by his loyal partner throughout the greater portion of his life, his widow Kathleen, his daughter Rhona, his son-in-law Kevin Brady and their two young children, and his son Robert. I extend to all of them my deepest sympathy. May Jim now rest in peace.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.10 p.m.]: I join all honourable members in this House in honouring the memory of our colleague Jim Anderson and I convey my condolences to his wife Kathleen, his son Robert and his daughter Rhona and her family. Jim was a good man. We heard tonight from other honourable members how good Jim Anderson was to constituents in his electorate of Londonderry. As my colleague the honourable member for Peats said earlier, Jim Anderson, as Deputy Whip, formed a tremendous team with George Thompson. They were committed to ensuring that all honourable members were treated fairly. Jim Anderson and George Thompson dealt compassionately with all the problems with which they were presented. Jim would always listen to people's problems. He was quick to assist anyone who had acted fairly and responsibly in this House.
I remember clearly the open morning teas that Jim and George held in their rooms. They were always ready to give advice, to welcome people and to give them a break from the rigours of day-to-day life in this Parliament. It has been said that Jim had a strong commitment to social justice, which was clearly demonstrated. He had a strong commitment to his Irish heritage and to people in his electorate who were disadvantaged. As has been said by many honourable members in this condolence motion, Jim was aware of the high levels of 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 149 unemployment in western Sydney and he sought a solution to that problem. I recall discussing with him the positive outcomes in my electorate as a result of the Building Better Cities Program. Jim did not take that on faith—although he had a lot of faith, as has been clearly demonstrated. He talked to me about it and he then arranged to visit Newcastle. Even though I was not in Newcastle at the time he obtained a full briefing about the operations of that program. I am sure he would have been wondering how to bring those benefits to his community.
Jim was a good, fair and hardworking man who was well respected in his community and in this Parliament. I, other members of this Parliament and all those members of his community who attended the church service at Rooty Hill said farewell to a man who was greatly respected. One could not have heard a better tribute to Jim than the Irish blessing that was delivered at the end of his service. All the things that are referred to in that blessing were deeply embedded in the day-to-day life of Jim Anderson. The blessing states:
May the road rise to meet you And the wind be at your back And the Lord uphold you Always in the hollow of his hand In the hollow of his hand. Faith be yours; Hope be yours; Love be yours, Peace be yours; Joy be yours, Strength be yours. May God bless you. May He keep you forever.
I say to Kathleen and her family: May God keep Jim forever. We give thanks for the tremendous service that Jim gave to this Parliament.
Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [6.15 p.m.]: I, like all honourable members in this place, offer my condolences to Kathleen and her family. I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed in the last 1½ hours about what a great guy Jim was. Jim Anderson played three roles. I knew Jim when he was Mayor of Blacktown and I was Mayor of the city of Dubbo. We had a lot in common and we were trying to achieve the same sorts of things for our cities. I also knew Jim as Deputy Whip in this Parliament. Independent members in this place, who do not tend to receive help from many people, need some sort of advice. I was always able to obtain that advice from Jim Anderson. He helped me to resolve problems, he gave me advice and he told me where to go. Jim Anderson did not have to do that for Independent members of Parliament, but he did. As Opposition members said earlier, he treated Opposition members in the same way as he treated members of his own party.
I was re-elected on 22 March because of the advice that Jim gave me during my last four years in this Parliament. Honourable members would be aware that I won the seat of Dubbo with a margin of 14 votes—the smallest margin in Australia. This time around I won the seat of Dubbo with a margin of nearly 4,000 votes. When I won the seat with a margin of only 14 votes I needed to obtain some advice. I said to Jim, "I need to run again. Will you help me?" He said, "Tony, look after the bread and butter issues in your electorate. The most important thing in your electorate is your constituents. Maintain your philosophy about this place, where you want to go and what you want to do, but look after your constituents. Always attend functions to which you are invited, even though only 10 or 15 people are present. Those 10 or 15 people are just as important as a gathering of 200 people." I took Jim's advice. It is a tribute to Jim that this time round I had such a large increase in my vote.
As has been said, Jim was a compassionate and fair man. He could see logic in any situation. I also knew Jim when he was deputy chair of the Select Committee on Salinity. Under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Wentworthville, the nine members of the committee travelled extensively. Salinity is a major problem facing New South Wales and Australia. There were never any disputes about where we should be going and what we should be recommending, due to the chairmanship of the honourable member for Wentworthville and the efforts of Jim. Jim and I attended most committee hearings. Other members of the committee who had a number of commitments could not attend all the meetings. I formed a close friendship with Jim because of our work on that committee. One of the great experiences of my life was being offered a trip to America and the United Kingdom with Jim as the leader of a group of three—two members of Parliament and one staff member.
I got to know Jim well after travelling with him for 17 days to other parts of the world. I became aware of his philosophy of life. He told me about the difficulties he had experienced early in his life in Ireland and then when he migrated to Australia. As honourable members are aware, Jim overcame all those difficulties. He was a 150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 great achiever. Jim, who migrated to Australia from Ireland, became Mayor of Blacktown, one of the major councils in New South Wales. He then became a member of Parliament and held several positions in this Parliament. Jim certainly achieved many things in a very short period.
I, too, suffer from sleep apnoea. Jim and I were dependent on our machines. We had considerable problems with our hand luggage because the equipment is delicate and we did not want them to malfunction while we were overseas. Security is stricter in America than in Australia and even though searches were supposed to be random, inevitably Jim and I were searched a second time. We endured all that and became very close. It may sound a little Irish but Jim was a great Irishman, a great mate and a great Aussie bloke. We will certainly miss Jim Anderson.
Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa—Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration)) [6.21 p.m.]: I would like to join my colleagues in paying my respects to Jim Anderson and expressing condolences to his wife, Kath, and to Rhona and Robert. All those who knew Jim remember him as the man with sparkling eyes and a never-ending smile. I do not know whether Jim's children would agree that he never had a cross word and perhaps would be reminded of times when he was not as even-tempered, but in the halls of Parliament I cannot imagine anyone who had ever seen Jim with anything other than what can only be described as a cheeky face and a wonderful accent. He will be incredibly sadly missed around here.
After the 1995 election we had adjoining electorates and worked closely together on similar issues. After the 1999 election and the redistribution I took over the St Marys part of Jim's electorate. Jim Anderson would have done more than any member of Parliament could possibly have done for that area. Everywhere I went he was known. Jim had done something for every community group I visited. Whether I visited the local St Marys High School, the school for children with disabilities, the newly opened hydrotherapy pool or any other facility, he had done something. He has helped so many people in the Londonderry electorate that his family will never hear from all of them. He had an unbelievable capacity to work and an enduring commitment to his electorate.
Jim used to refer to the saying "Always dance with the lady who brought you." For Jim, that meant being committed to those things that he held true to himself. They were his community, his faith and his family; the things he was most proud of and considered in every decision he ever made. It was a real challenge to take over St Marys from Jim because he had made a name for himself within that community—something I had to try to live up to.
I would also like to pay tribute to his branch members who, on the day of the election, continued to hand out how-to-vote cards for the seat of Londonderry. It was difficult because nobody talked about how the election was going; they were grieving. I thought it was magnificent that all Jim's branch members decided to remain at their posts and in doing so ensured that a tenth seat was secured for the Labor Party in the upper House. They honoured Jim with their courage and commitment. Jim has also been honoured by the Premier, and deservedly so. I express my heartfelt sympathy to Jim's family. Jim was a great mate to everybody in this House and he will be very sadly missed.
Ms MEGARRITY (Menai) [6.26 p.m.]: Many members tonight have used the word "gentleman". Indeed, Jim Anderson was a gentle man in every sense of that word. I could not hope to improve upon Richard Amery's deeply touching eulogy and his comments today. I endorse the comments of every speaker. However, I wish to share with Jim's family and the House the impact that Jim had on me as the newly elected member for Menai in 1999. Unlike some of the members currently experiencing their first week in this place, I did not make my inaugural speech in my first week. I confess my head was still spinning with so many new faces, names and procedures to learn. I do not think Jim and I had any one-on-one conversations that week.
In my second week the historic Drug Summit was held. It was primarily conducted in the other place, the Legislative Council. New members of Parliament were afforded the opportunity to speak in that forum without compromising their yet-to-be-made inaugural speeches in this Chamber. I clearly remember approaching the podium with a sense of nervousness and uncertainty about the task before me. I looked up at the large gathering, and the person who went out of his way to catch my eye and to give me his undivided and supportive attention was Jim. During the course of my speech I looked around the room, as one is supposed to, but I kept looking back to Jim for that unswerving support to get me through.
In fact, during my first year there were a couple of occasions, usually after a parliamentary recess, when the prospect of standing up in a debate in this place, which is often called the bear pit, can be a little 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 151 daunting, to say the least. Without fail Jim managed to sense that trepidation and would pointedly ask, "And why aren't you getting up on this one?" I would give the excuse that I had a meeting to attend or something to do, I was feeling a bit rusty and was not confident about the topic. He would manage to say just the right thing to reassure me and, as others have pointed out, I knew that he was not going to take no for an answer. When I did get up he would stay in the Chamber and listen to what I had to say. Jim was someone you could count on.
I also recall a rather lively occasion when I saw the usually quiet Jim in full swing. It was a gathering in honour of Richard Amery's fiftieth birthday. It opened my eyes. Jim and I had a dance—I hope you do not mind, Kathleen—and there was a singalong to some of Richard's Elvis Presley favourites. Indeed, we were even humming the tunes the next day. I was surprised to hear someone say that Jim did not sing, but in true Jim style I remember him saying, "I wonder if you can sing, Alison"; in other words, he had me singing. I do not know now whether he actually sang but I thought he did. The news of Jim's passing on the morning of 22 March hit me well and truly for six. At the first polling booth I attended on the day someone who had not heard the sad news assumed I was concerned about my electoral prospects in my marginal seat. Of course, I was not thinking about that at all. We were all in a state of shock.
I returned to my car, sat down and thought, "What would Jim say to me in this situation?" I knew that he would have said, "Get on with it, young lady." So I did. We had a great win, which I know would have pleased Jim immensely. In addition to thinking of Jim's family that day, I thought also of Jan Clifford in the Whip's office. I knew that Jim, in his capacity as Deputy Whip, worked closely with Jan and they shared a real friendship. I do not need to tell Jim's family that this place has very long sitting hours, and Jan and Jim would often have to sit it out long after many of us had left—with permission, of course. I therefore asked Jan whether she would like me to convey something on her behalf. However, rather than paraphrasing her sentiments, I will quote the few lines that she gave me. Jan wrote:
Very few people are lucky enough to have the combined qualities of a positive, energetic and nurturing nature. To me Jim had these qualities and much more in large doses. We shared with others many sitting nights in the Whip's office discussing world events & our families.
Not that we solved any of those world event problems.
Listening to Jim talk of his family it was obvious that they meant everything to him. He was so proud of Kathleen's plays and her lead roles.
Jan concluded:
I know that I will not be the only one to miss Jim's good company in the 53rd Parliament sitting nights to come.
For my part, since the resumption of Parliament, I, like so many of us, have walked the halls or entered the members' dining room half expecting to see Jim there. Late in the evening when I receive a very welcome telephone call it will not be Jim saying—almost in code—"If you don't have any business to keep you here …" and implying that I could go. The sad fact is that we were not ready to let Jim go. To Kathleen, the entire Anderson family, friends and the communities of the Londonderry electorate I offer my family's sincere condolences. I include the condolences of my parents-in-law, Rita and Bert Megarrity, who live in Rooty Hill. They knew Jim and were very sad to hear of his untimely passing. It is obvious from everything we have heard so far—and everything that we are going to hear, judging from the number of members who wish to speak to this motion—that although Jim is gone, he is certainly not forgotten. May he rest in peace.
Mrs PERRY (Auburn) [6.31 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the life of one of our dearest colleagues, Jim Anderson. I remember the first time that I met him: I was a new member stumbling around a new world, trying to find my bearings and to make the many adjustments that I am all too familiar with now. And there was Jim, grinning as he did, full of light, laughter and that special kind of Irish humour that does wonders for the soul. Always at hand to guide, instruct and remind, Jim helped me to find my feet and, when I did, I discovered that they always led me back to him for he became a friend, a mentor and a kindly figure who, despite his youthfulness, represented somewhat of a father to me.
Jim was a humble man made great not only by his lifetime of outstanding service and accomplishment but, more importantly, by his genuine desire to serve, inspire and enrich the lives of the many who had no way of repaying him. The greatness of a person is measured in the ordinariness of everyday living not, as myth, movie and common opinion would have it, in the fleeting moments of struggle and glory. Jim was indeed great for he needed no spotlight, no incentive or promise of future glory to be the man he was: thoughtful, kind and selfless right down to his very smallest and seemingly insignificant acts and habits. He was this man to all, as testified by the Daily Telegraph article published on 28 March entitled "Both sides mourn loved MP". 152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003
It goes without saying that Jim's death was untimely, unexpected and deeply saddening. But let us remember that death serves as a reminder of our own mortality and of the fact that we are subject to the same external forces as other people. In honour of Jim it would also be fitting to reflect upon his life as an inspiration and a challenge to our own. Let us also keep in mind that behind all the speeches and media grabs is an individual with family and friends. And Jim had more than his fair share of these. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Anderson family—to Jim's wife, Kathleen, and children, Rhona and Robert—and to all others close to him. We cannot begin to imagine what you are going through. I am reminded of the words of Jack Lemmon, who once said, "Death ends a life; not a relationship." Many of us here shared relationships with Jim. While Jim has departed this world, the relationships that we shared with him will continue to live on in our hearts and in our memories. He will be sadly missed.
Mr PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [6.35 p.m.]: I would like to express my condolences to Jim's wife, Kathleen, and to his son, Robert, and his daughter, Rhona. Like all of us, I was very saddened and shocked to learn of Jim's death on election day. Jim was a sitting member and parliamentary colleague and his passing is a stark reminder to us all of the fragility and uncertainty of life. I got to know Jim reasonably well when we served together on the Select Committee on Salinity. Jim was Deputy Chairman and, when called upon to do so, chaired committee meetings with great competence. He was a very active and conscientious committee member who always asked penetrating questions and wanted to know the details about any issue that he thought important. While his questioning was keen and incisive, it was always polite, thus reflecting the gentleman that Jim was.
Even though Jim's electorate was situated in Western Sydney he had a real interest in, and knowledge of, natural resource management. The salinity committee travelled quite often to other States to see how things were done there and Jim was always very interesting company on such trips. Whether we were travelling by plane on a long trip to Perth or riding in a bus, Jim's conversation was always very interesting. He had a wide knowledge of a variety of subjects—everything from aircraft engines to sport, politics and people. I found Jim interesting to talk to because he was unpredictable—one never quite knew what was around the corner. What was predictable about Jim was that he was a real gentleman, as all honourable members have said. I think the thing that I will remember most about Jim is his fundamental decency, his practical hands-on approach to things, his sense of social justice and his compassion. I did not know Jim as well as many members in this Chamber but I knew him well enough to know that, as we say in Australia, he was a bloody good bloke.
Ms ALLAN (Wentworthville) [6.37 p.m.]: Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. It is probably at times such as this that you appreciate fully the constraints that your position places upon you. You will not have the opportunity to speak directly to this condolence motion but, as a former member for Blacktown, a former mayor of Blacktown and a close working colleague of Jim Anderson over many years, I am sure that your feelings run even deeper than those of other members who have made their contributions. I first met Jim and Kathleen Anderson when I became the member for Blacktown and Jim was mayor of Blacktown. I met both of them at the air services hall in Blacktown—which is where the Blacktown branch of the Labor Party met, and probably continues to meet, on Sunday mornings.
Distinguished people such as Richard Amery, Roger Price, John Aquilina, Jim Anderson, other councillors from Blacktown City Council and I would attend meetings regularly to report to an extremely demanding Blacktown branch about what had been happening in events in local politics and other political realms in the previous month. I always found Jim Anderson to be very friendly, which was probably a little surprising as I was landed on the Blacktown branch—I was not necessarily its first choice as local member.
Nevertheless, I developed a close working relationship with Jim, and I reiterate the comments made already today about what a great mayor of Blacktown he was and what a wonderful lady mayoress Kathleen was. Kathleen, I have admired you for many years and you played a brilliant role as lady mayoress of Blacktown. Jim was my colleague in this place since 1995. Certain occasions in this Parliament make us feel inadequate, and this is one of them. When we look collectively all the wonderful qualities of Jim Anderson, as we have done over the past few hours, we must look at ourselves and see where we are wanting, because it reminds us of our inadequacies. It certainly reminds me of my inadequacies. It is always good for people in politics to be aware of that.
As has already been said, Jim was hard-working, diligent and a great advocate for Western Sydney. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills' comments about representatives from Western Sydney were spot on, because every member of Western Sydney with whom I am familiar and with whom I have worked over many, many years had those same qualities. Jim was an outstanding advocate for Western Sydney. The Minister 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 153 for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration) and the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources, mentioned the sorts of issues in which Jim was actively involved. He was totally committed to his community, and he was an advocate for Western Sydney in the realms of this Parliament, where sometimes Western Sydney does not get the voice it should—that is, the Parliament, the caucus and the ministry.
I was most impressed when Jim Anderson went into caucus meetings and asked penetrating questions of Ministers. I thought, "This guy won't last very long." But of course he did, and he was widely respected. Earlier this afternoon the Premier reiterated the strong impact that Jim's words of criticism had on him. More recently as Chair of the salinity committee I worked very closely with Jim as the Deputy-Chair. It is hard to imagine the honourable member for Dubbo and Jim Anderson, with their respective sleep apnoea machines, travelling around the United States of America and Europe but they did it. The research officer who attended them on that trip, Christina Thomas, appreciated Jim's company. The salinity committee secretariat wishes to place on record its sincerity and appreciation for all the hard work that Jim Anderson did as the Deputy-Chair.
We have said that Jim was diligent, and we have heard that he was full of advice. I received advice from Jim and I did not always take it—perhaps I should have. There were occasions when I did take his advice, and I appreciated his advice and the manner in which it was offered. Jim was an acute observer of this place and the members of it. Although we like to think of ourselves as astute political creatures, we are not all equally observant about what happens in this place. Jim was one of the few members who regularly observed what was going on here and how we behaved towards each other. Perhaps we are seeing the product of that when we hear the honourable member for Menai, the honourable member for Auburn and the honourable member for Port Stephens talk about the direct assistance that Jim gave them.
Jim was an acute observer—the fact that he was sober all the time may have contributed to that. Nevertheless, he was an acute observer of what happened in this place, and he was always prepared to come forward and tell us the results of those observations. Sometimes, perhaps we did not like to hear them. Jim was also an active participant, as has already been described in great detail. He was totally devoted to his family. We heard a lot about Jim's family in this place. We did not have to know Jim very well to hear about his family. Although I do not know Robert and Rhona and the children personally, I must admit that we heard about the family. We heard about Kathleen's annual trips to Ireland. He was so proud of you, Kathleen. You know that. At one stage perhaps you may have planned a political career as well. He would have been equally proud if that attempt had been successful. Nevertheless, you two went on and had an enriched life despite that.
Finally, we have enjoyed hearing the honourable member for Mount Druitt speak on at least two occasions about his relationship with Jim Anderson. I think we will miss not only Jim but the relationship between the honourable member for Mount Druitt and Jim, if we look at it as something of material benefit to this Parliament. Often after a late night sitting I would travel down in the lift with Jim Anderson and the honourable member for Mount Druitt. They would be going to meet the driver, carrying a bag of papers that had to be signed—I hope the Minister for Energy and Utilities, who is at the table, is working hard on that now— and travelling home together. Their friendship was one real material benefit in this place. Having listened to the honourable member for Mount Druitt speak on several occasions now, we know how much he will miss that. I think we will miss it as well. As honourable members know, we do not see such close friendships in this Parliament. It was great to see the friendship and relationship between the honourable member for Mount Druitt and Jim. We will miss seeing that, as the honourable member for Mount Druitt will miss experiencing it.
Mr BARR (Manly) [6.44 p.m.]: It is good to be back in this place after the election, but it is not good to be back in these circumstances. I did not know Jim Anderson very well. I did not know him as well as I would like to have known him, but I did know him well enough to know that he was a very fine and good person. When I came in here as an Independent member in 1999 it was a lonely place. Independent members do not get much support. They are new boys on the block, and there are all sorts of things they do not know about. Jim was always helpful to and supportive of me. After I gave a speech he would always say, "That was good" and "Well done". After my first budget speech I was with my elder son, William, when we passed Jim in the corridor. Jim said to my son, "Did you listen to what your dad said? It was good." I might say that it was not a particularly flattering speech about the Government's budget at the time.
On another occasion when I bumped into Jim he asked how I was. I said, "I just lost on the floor." He said, "Don't worry about that. Some of us are losing regularly but it happens behind closed doors. You don't see it in public. I wouldn't worry too much about it." He was always helpful and supportive. He wore his political heart on his sleeve, and it was a big heart. It was a heart that was about old-fashioned Labor Party virtues, if I 154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 can put it that way, as opposed to the more corporatist type of Labor that seems to be evolving. In this place it was good to have someone with the values that I think we all need—values about compassion, concern for the underdog and concern for how ordinary people get on in life. It is our job as politicians in this place to do that, and Jim was an embodiment of all that. Because of that, we will all sorely miss him, no matter what side of politics we are on, because he was a very good person.
Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [6.47 p.m.]: I shall speak briefly to the condolence motion for Jim Anderson. I say "briefly" because I know that I am simply echoing the words of other honourable members. To those of us who entered Parliament in 1999, Jim Anderson was a very wise counsellor, particularly on the Government side as Deputy Government Whip. He was always there to guide us, particularly when we got a bit frustrated with the system. It was always a good calming influence to have a yarn with Jim. I had the pleasure of knowing Jim before I came here. When Jim was the mayor of Blacktown I was the mayor of Lithgow; we had met at local government conferences and through the ALP. The greatest tribute to Jim was the number of people who attended his funeral to pay their respects and the diversity of the groups they represented—everyone from commissioners, heads of departments and Consul-Generals, to the ordinary working people Jim loved and for whom he worked so hard.
Whatever else we say about Jim Anderson, he had the common touch. He was a man of the people, and I think that drove him. He derived more pleasure from helping people with small problems than assisting Ministers after hours when they wanted to get away. He was a calming influence. I am conscious that Jim would have been appointed to the position I hold in this the Fifty-third Parliament—that is, Government Whip—if he had not been so tragically lost on 22 March. Ironically—and this is simply by accident—the room I will be occupying in this building is 1228, which was Jim's room. That is an honour. I know that the ghost and spirit of Jim Anderson will be with me in that room over the next four years. I will draw on the inspiration that came from knowing Jim. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [6.49 p.m.]: I express my sincere condolences to the late Jim Anderson's family and friends. I was elected to this place in March 1999. As all new members quickly find out, it is not the Premier or senior Ministers of the day whom one can call on for advice; it is the Government Whip and the Deputy Government Whip. They are the gentlemen who get you through in your first few months in this place and for the next four years. Jim Anderson excelled in the role of Deputy Whip. He always sought to help members learn the ropes. He gave me many opportunities to speak in the Chamber, and I know that he genuinely appreciated the fact that I usually took them up. I think Jim got a kick out of the fact that he recognised a trait in me, that I could speak under water, and that that could be useful in a Parliament.
Mr Martin: And cement.
Mr ASHTON: And cement. I think I might have written "cement" in my notes He recognised that I could be a useful tool for the Government against the Opposition. As the Deputy Whip, Jim's former position, I will try to find other members who can do that for the Government as well. On many occasions in the Whip's office, with many members who are present now, there were discussions ranging from football in Ireland or England to the politics of the local communities that we represent to the politics of New South Wales and, equally as often, the history, geography and the politics of Ireland. I am not Irish. My father was English, and in many ways Jim may not have appreciated that, but my wife's family is Irish. It is interesting that you can never take people out of Ireland forever. I always enjoyed the conversations about Jim's family life and background.
Another constant piece of advice Jim gave me was—I do not know from where he got it; perhaps from the honourable member for Mount Druitt—"You know son, you should come and join the Right. You probably would get on there". I have not taken up that offer but I always took it in the sense that Jim meant it: with a great degree of sincerity and a sense of humour and friendship. I never objected to hearing that suggestion from him. I know members have commented on the irony of the redistribution that resulted in Jim's electorate of St Marys being renamed Londonderry. Given Jim's background and his decision to leave Belfast, the opportunities he was given to represent the electorate of Londonderry must have been quite ironic for him. As has already been said, his obvious commitment to his new electorate resulted in his election to Blacktown City Council, where he served as a councillor and later as mayor for four years.
Like everyone in this House I was devastated when I heard that Jim passed away on the very morning of the State election. I was in the East Hills State Electorate Office on that morning when I heard the electoral officer take the phone call and say, "Don't distribute any howto vote cards for the seat of Londonderry". Everyone there assumed that the electorate office had forgotten to send out lower House ballot papers for the 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 155 electorate. I asked, "What is that about?" and I was informed of Jim's tragic death. Like Alison Megarrity, the honourable member for Menai, I was devastated for the whole day and beyond. I know that the Premier dedicated the victory of the Labor Party to Jim. No-one hesitated when I called for a minute's silence at my own victory party. They say that if one wants a friend in politics, get a dog. But we would not still be here now speaking to this condolence motion for Jim Anderson if he had not been a true friend and a real gentleman. As the honourable member for Wentworthville pointed out, that is rare.
A final example of Jim's belief in the people and branch members of his electorate was evident on the day the Premier launched the Labor Party campaign at Penrith. I was seated next to Barrie Unsworth, the former Premier, who was with his wife. Jim Anderson was supposed to have had the seat on the other side. Jim did not turn up for the Premier's speech, but I knew he was there. At the end of the speech I asked Jim, "Where were you? What happened?" He said, "I wasn't going to sit down there, lad, I was up the back with a whole lot of branch members I brought along." He bussed in branch members for the Premier's launch of the campaign. That typified Jim. He did not have to sit in the front row and perhaps get his picture on the television for two or three seconds; he was at the back with his branch members to help make the Labor event successful.
Jim was a gentleman in so many ways. He was a man of manners, but that did not hide his great passion and his commitment to causes and people. I will never forget a day in the dining room when Jim wanted to leave the table before the rest of us. He said, "May I be excused from the table?" and he left. I had not done that since I was a little kid, about 35 years ago. It was something that Jim always did; it is not done very much today. He was a gentleman, a man of principles. There is no doubt that the Jim's death is an untold loss to the people of Londonderry and to this Parliament. I am not able to express in words to Jim's his wife, Kath, his son Robert, his daughter Rhona and their families what the loss of Jim Anderson means. That is beyond my ability.
Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [6.55 p.m.]: It was a great shock for me when the former Government Whip, George Thompson, rang me at 8.25 a.m. on election day. The news of Jim's death was a tragic shock. I will always remember where I was. I was at Wallsend hospital polling both. I stopped my round of polling booth visits and found my wife, Trudy, at another polling booth. Luckily, we were able to reach Kathleen on the phone to express our shock and sympathy at what was a terrible time for her on that morning. As the twenty-third or twenty-fourth speaker in this debate, there is not a great deal left for me to say about many of Jim's qualities. I note that he made his inaugural speech in the budget debate in November 1995. Although we did not know it then, his final contribution to debate in this place was in November 2002 in relation to the environmental performance of Western Sydney businesses. But the speech of Jim's that I like best was a short one on 20 June 2002. In it, Jim Anderson expressed his delight at an event that he attended in Canberra on the long weekend in June last year. He went to Canberra with the Henry Lawson Players, an amateur dramatic group from his electorate, to watch them perform in the 2002 Canberra Festival of Amateur One Act Plays. He said:
I state at the outset that one of the players who performed at that festival was my wife, but that was not the only reason I attended the festival. Obviously, I was there to support a group from my electorate and to see how well they performed. It was an outstanding event.
He went on to explain many of the details of the event. He said that the group of amateur actors was supported by an outstanding club in his electorate, the Henry Lawson Club. The club provides a theatre for the players and also some financial support. He said:
At the conclusion of the weekend the adjudicators awarded prizes for the various categories of performances. I was thrilled when the Henry Lawson Players received an award for the most outstanding performance.
My wife and her colleagues were presented with a trophy for their performance.
I could hear his joy when he told the Parliament about that great and happy experience, particularly because it was in his personal life. He always brought his personal life to bear on his efforts as a member of Parliament. He congratulated his wife, Kathleen, and other people that he named for their brilliant performances. I like that speech. It was the fellowship of bowls that brought Jim and I together. Importantly, it enabled my wife, Trudy, and me to meet Kathleen and Jim away from this place. He was the left-handed right winger who was the lead bowler for New South Wales one, the team that was skippered by Minister Richard Amery. I was the right- handed left winger who was the lead bowler for New South Wales two, captained by Minister Richard Face. We both had Best Rink trophies in our cabinets. We had wonderful experiences and great journeys.
My wife, Trudy, became good friends with Kathleen. Together they did many things and went to many events. They even went shopping together, particularly in Perth. I would sometimes see the results of those shopping trips. That fellowship brought us together as great friends. Some of the best times of my life have been 156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 with Jim and Kathleen and other members of the fellowship of the New South Wales bowls team. We will certainly miss him. On behalf of Trudy and myself, I extend our condolences to Kathleen, Rhona and Robert. You can be very proud of the great contribution that your Jim made to your community, to the Labor cause and to public life in New South Wales.
Mr CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [7.00 p.m.]: Many words have been spoken in this condolence motion. If only those words could in some way turn back the clock and we did not have to have this debate, it would be tremendous. With all the words that have been said, at this stage one can only stand and echo them and give some personal reflections. Other members, particularly those now entering their second term in this place, have talked about the way Jim would give them a hand. One of the things he always did was to organise private members' statements. If you had to make a private member's statement this week he had this happy knack of giving you the opportunity to make it, because he understood how important it was. The speech the honourable member for Wallsend referred to was a private member's statement and I remember being in the Chamber when Jim made it. He also had the happy knack of getting you off the list if you needed to do something else and making you feel it was your idea that you got off to make way for someone else. I always found that Jim had the ability to make a hard decision, but he made it in a way that was palatable to everybody.
A couple of years ago my wife and I went on a private holiday to Britain. I was sitting in a pub in England—we later went to Ireland—and we started talking to some people we had not met before. We talked about who they were and where they came from, and they asked me the same things. This couple ran a small business in Rooty Hill. When they found out I was a member of Parliament they said, "Our local member is Jim Anderson," and they spoke about what a great bloke he was, what a great job he did, and how he listened, acted and worked. At the time I was struck by that and I hoped that some day people I represent would be talking to people in a pub overseas and saying exactly the same thing about me. That has been repeated time and again in this debate. I ran into those people at Jim's funeral. That is how much they thought of Jim Anderson. They are not members of the Australian Labor Party but they worked with Jim and Kath on issues relating to their local school and the steel mill campaign some years ago. We reminisced about our trip and about our memories of Jim Anderson.
The other incident I recall happened at the second meeting of the Centre Unity caucus that I attended in this place four years ago when Jim and I were elected as deputy chairs of that organisation. After that meeting Jim dragged me aside and said, "If there is ever a need for one of us to chair this meeting, you grab it, son, because it will be of advantage to you and it will be an opportunity for you." As many other members have said, he had the happy knack of giving you words of wisdom, words of encouragement, after you had made a speech in this Chamber—"That was a great speech" or "You should have done it perhaps a bit differently". He was not judgmental; he was always encouraging.
I join every other speaker in this debate in extending the condolences of myself and my family to Jim's wife and his family. As I said at the outset, if only the words of this debate could turn back the clock and Jim could be here with us. We would probably be making private members' statements instead of speaking to this motion. The number of contributions to this debate is testament to the friendship and enthusiastic encouragement that Jim gave to so many of us. I simply say: Rest in peace, Jim Anderson.
Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [7.04 p.m.]: A lot has been said in this Chamber about Jim Anderson's commitment to his community and his willingness to always assist different groups in the community. I can testify to that. I made reference to it in my inaugural speech in 1999. I was living in Whalan, a subdivision of Mt Druitt. BHP was building a mini mill at Rooty Hill, and 132-volt powerlines ran through my backyard. They ran through the backyards of about 136 homes from St Marys through to Rooty Hill. We heard that Integral Energy—at that stage it was Prospect County Council—intended to re-energise these powerlines for the BHP mini mill, after a commitment had been given by BHP that no-one in the community would be adversely affected by the mini mill.
We decided to lobby the neighbourhood and have a public meeting. At that time Charlie Lowles and Jim were both ward councillors on Blacktown City Council. They came along and offered their assistance in our fight with the county council. The fight went on for some time and in the end the powerlines were re-energised. During that time I, along with two other people, went to Blacktown City Council and spoke to the council about the powerlines. I then met up with Richard Amery and Andy Manson, who came on board as well, and Roger Price, the Federal member. At that time Jim Anderson said to me, "Marianne, you ought to join the Labor Party. We could do with strong young women like you in the party." At that time my eldest child was only a few 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 157 months old and I felt I had more than enough on my plate. I come from a good Labor background. At that time my mother was a councillor on Shellharbour City Council. Jim knew that, but I said, "No, not now." I sold my property to the county council and moved to the Illawarra.
I kept running into Jim at Labor conferences and different events around that time. The next thing I knew I was candidate for the electorate of Illawarra in the 1999 election. All campaigns need funding, so I invited Richard Amery to be guest speaker to a function I was having. Jim and Kathleen also came along. We had a terrific day in Oak Flats. From the time I came into this Parliament Jim was always there to lend a hand and be supportive. It did not matter what the problem was. When I came into Parliament I was fortunate enough to have the office next door to Jim. My door was always open and Jim would often pop his head in and say hello. When I had guests he would always come in and tell them what a great member they had. He never blew his own trumpet but he always liked to do it for everyone else. Jim would have been overwhelmed by the number of people who attended his funeral and by the service. It was a beautiful service; it was a celebration of Jim's life. It celebrated Jim Anderson. It was a great tribute to him.
I offer to Kathleen and the family my condolences and those of Charlie in what I know must be a very difficult time. Jim was instrumental not only in my becoming a member of this Parliament but also in my involvement with the parliamentary bowls club. We have heard a lot about the bowls club tonight. Jim encouraged me to join. In the parliamentary dining room is an honours board listing a number of people. I said to Jim, "What's that about?" He said, "That's our bowls team." I asked, "Well, how come there are no women on the board?" Jim said, "We don't have women in the bowls team." I said, "Oh, don't you! Well, I'm going to join up." He asked, "Have you bowled?" I said, "No. Never bowled a bowl in my life. But, don't worry, I'll learn." So I did. I went down to my local bowling club. None other than Rob Parella, a champion, gave me bowling lessons.
At the end of that year we bowled in Western Australia. That was my first experience with the team, and Marie and I were the first women on the team. In fact, Marie and I now have our names on the honours board because the following year, in Queensland, New South Wales won the overall championship. Team 2, my team, led by Richard Face, was the regional team, and Richard Amery's team was known as the city slickers. We won Best Rink. So, in a way, Jim was responsible for the appearance of the first women's names amongst the bowlers on the dining room honours board. He was a great supporter of the bowls club. I have already started encouraging new members to come along and bowl. I am sure that is exactly as Jim would do. Once again, I offer my condolences to the family. Memories of Jim will live on for a long time to come.
Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [7.12 p.m.]: I also extend my condolences to Kath, Robert and Rhona. My parents, Merv and Bette Hunter, have asked me to extend their condolences also. Much has been said this evening about Jim Anderson, and I can add little more. I first met Jim when he was elected to Parliament. I did not know him for as long as many other members did, but in the short time that we served here together I became very fond of him and came to admire and respect him. Like many other members, I got to know Jim more closely through our involvement with the parliamentary bowling team and the annual bowling carnivals. My parents also participate in that activity. Some of my best memories I think will be of our trip to Egypt in 2001 and of cruising down the Nile, inspecting pyramids and temples. Kath would recall the upset tummies we all suffered on that trip. I think I was the first to be laid low. I have some fantastic pictures of that trip and of us all together with Jim. Those are memories that I will always cherish.
Like John Mills, I learnt of Jim's passing on election day. I had to pull the car over and take a break. The first person I called was John Mills. He said that he had been in contact with you, Kath, and had spoken to you. I did not contact you on the day; I thought too many people would be contacting you. Jim was admired by his whole community. Today we have heard how he truly served the people in his electorate. And I know that they really cared about him, because that was evidenced by the number of people at his funeral. It was a massive event. He served his community well and will be sadly missed. I pass on my condolences and those of my family.
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [7.15 p.m.]: Like everyone else in this place, I was shocked to learn on the day of the election of the passing of Jim Anderson. As the member for Lismore, I drove round the electorate on election day. At every polling booth I went to I was asked did I know the member who had passed away that morning. Sadly, I did. Whilst I was in opposition to Jim, he was a person I got to know and respect very quickly. I was the phantom member of the bowls team; I never turned up. He always let me know that.
I will never forget the night I was on House duty and during a debate that was taking place someone was talking about the benefits of bullbars in the country. Jim, who was sitting on the other side of the Chamber, 158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 walked over to me and said, "Are those bullbars as good as they are making out?" I said, "Yes, they are. You've got to have them." He said, "Well, I think I'll get one for the back of my vehicle as well as the front." Every time we saw each other after that we commented about bullbars.
Sadly, members of Parliament are always in a hurry. A week before the election when I was flitting through the House I said, "Hi, Jim. All the best for next week." He said, "Yes, I'll see you in a few weeks." I will never forget that. I have not had the pleasure of meeting his family, but on behalf of the electorate of Lismore, I wish them every happiness after Jim's passing. All of the tributes paid to him tonight are testimony to the high regard in which he was held by his community, his family and his friends. I pass on the sympathy of the Lismore electorate to his family, and trust that God will bless them in the future. Vale, Jim Anderson.
Mr SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [7.16 p.m.]: I speak not as one of Jim's fellow members of Parliament or as a fellow member of the Labor Party. I guess I speak as a fellow mayor who served with Jim on an Olympic mayors group. On election day, when the news came through of Jim's passing I was with George Thompson. George told me the news, and was obviously quite shocked. In fact, as we travelled to polling booths he kept repeating how shocked he was.
As we know, George was Government Whip and Jim was Deputy Government Whip, and they were a great team. If George had not retired and been here today I know he would have had a lot to say about Jim, so I feel it is appropriate that I should at least acknowledge how close they were and how shocked and sad George was. My experience with Jim was a little more remote, but I did chair an Olympic mayors group that comprised about 10 Sydney mayors whose municipalities had Olympic facilities. This was while Jim was still the mayor of Blacktown. We met fairly regularly, every one or two months, and discussed issues to do with the Olympics. Usually, it was a bit of a gripe session about the Olympic Co-ordination Authority and what we could or could not get from it.
I have to say that Jim was very patient. He would listen to what I suppose was a lot of whingeing by the mayors, but he was always very wise and to the point. He seemed able to sort out his issues with the Olympic Co-ordination Authority better than most other mayors. His contribution was highly valued. He was a very smart, wise, astute and nice man. It is obvious that he was held in very high regard. One member spoke earlier of Jim as a gentleman in the true sense of the word. He certainly was. He seemed to me to have the secrets of the universe. I never quite acquired them from him. It is a great pity that he is no longer in this Parliament, and that I too cannot gain from him as a fellow member. Vicariously, I suppose, on behalf of George Thompson and myself, I want to acknowledge the wonderful contribution that Jim made and the wonderful human being that he was.
Mr HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Mineral Resources) [7.19 p.m.]: As all honourable members have said, this is a very sad occasion. I offer my condolences to Kathleen, Rhona and Robert. I am thankful to have had the opportunity to know Jim, albeit for only four short years. In those four years Jim became a friend, and friends in this place are few and far between. It is difficult for members to speak on a condolence motion for a much-loved sitting member. That members have spoken in this debate for the past three hours is a tribute in itself to Jim Anderson and an indication of the high regard in which he is held in this House.
No-one could argue that Jim had a heart of gold. He was a caring and compassionate man. He was passionate about the people in his electorate and about his beliefs. In his inaugural speech Jim spoke about the high unemployment rate in the St Marys electorate, especially youth unemployment. In 1994 the unemployment rate in Jim's electorate was 18 per cent with youth unemployment running at 28 per cent. Through Jim's contributions in this House and hard work in his electorate, the unemployment rate in the Londonderry electorate is now as low as 7 per cent—and that pays homage to Jim’s hard work. As the member for the Cessnock electorate, which also suffers from high unemployment, I share Jim's concerns about the issue.
As a member of the Select Committee on Salinity, I was lucky enough to travel with Jim through the electorate of Cessnock and to Western Australia to examine salinity issues. I got to know Jim well on our travels. He was a marvellous man who could touch your soul. He described everyone as wonderful and he meant it. Other people use the same term, but they do not mean it. Jim did. On election day the people in his electorate did him proud. Despite the terrible loss of such a wonderful man, they felt so highly of Jim that they continued to staff the polling booths and hand out brochures depicting his smiling face.
I received the phone call about Jim's death from George Thompson, the former member for Rockdale, at a quarter to nine as I was travelling between the mountains in the Wollombi valley. The message was 30 April 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 159 scrambled and I could not believe what George told me. I pulled over three times between Wollombi and Singleton to contact George because I did not believe that Jim had passed away. To speak to a condolence motion is the least we can do for Jim. We could build monuments to him, but he has done that for himself. I would like to finish by reading some words from a traditional Irish song, The Parting Glass:
Oh all the comrades that e’er I’ve had, they are sorry for my going away But since it falls unto my lot that I should rise and you should not I’ll gently rise and I’ll softly call goodnight and joy be with you all.
Mr SPEAKER (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina): Although this is only my second day as Speaker of this Chamber, I intend to depart from precedent and use my prerogative to make some remarks from the Chair. I do this because of my long friendship with Jim Anderson over a period exceeding 20 years and because I believe it is appropriate and relevant that these comments be made. In my long experience in this Chamber, which I share with a number of other people, I cannot recall a condolence motion on which so many members have spoken and where there has been such a response and support from longstanding members and others who have been here a short time, as well as from many members of the Opposition and Independent members.
It is a great tribute to Jim Anderson that so many have had something unique to say about him. Those of us who have known Jim Anderson for a long time thought we knew a great deal about him, but I do not believe that, with the possible exception of the honourable member for Mount Druitt, any of us really knew all there was to know about him. He touched people in a special and different way, and about that there has been a great deal of testimony tonight.
Jim had a serious side to him. He cared very strongly about social issues, such as employment and education. He had a great love for his family—Kathleen, Robert, Rhona, Kevin and the grandchildren—a great love for his country and a great love for his homeland Ireland. He had a great love for his work in public life and for his constituents and also for his work with his colleagues in this Chamber. He had a unique way of greeting each and every one of us. We have heard many members speak of the way in which he greeted them. For some reason or other, and I never knew why, he always opened a conversation with me with the word "son". On occasions I did not know how to take him when he said that. Many a time I felt I was being admonished, that perhaps I had done something wrong. Then his big, broad smile would come out and I would realise that I was on a good footing.
We also know that there was the other side of Jim—a great sense of humour, a big, broad smile, his great love of sport and the work that he did in the bowling community. I know that I was being admonished whenever he spoke to me about the Parliamentary Bowling Club, of which I have been a member since 1981 but have never rolled a bowl. The honourable member for Mount Druitt also admonishes me on a regular basis about that. But Jim always used to say, "There is hope for you yet, son."
I would like to pay tribute not only to the great work that Jim has done here, which has been spoken about many times, but also to the work he did as an alderman with Blacktown council representing ward 4 and particularly for his work as the Mayor of Blacktown. During that time Blacktown went through a huge change. In recognition of his love of sport he played a huge role in developing sporting fields in the Blacktown area, which will always be a lasting testimony to Jim. He should be remembered in a specific way for the great contribution he made to sport. As the Minister for Energy and Utilities has reminded us this evening, it was largely because of the work that Jim Anderson did as the Mayor of Blacktown prior to his becoming a State member that Aquilina Reserve was secured as an Olympic venue for the Blacktown Olympic Park and will now always bear the Blacktown Olympic Park stamp. Jim worked very hard for that venue. That Blacktown achieved an Olympic venue is a great tribute to him.
Jim also had a great love for and commitment to education. I had a major involvement with him in that regard in my former capacity as the Minister for Education and Training. We have heard the Premier and other members talk about Jim's untiring work to establish a university campus at the former Nirimba naval base, which is located in my electorate. As the honourable member for Mount Druitt has indicated, Jim has left his footprints all over that project. I also refer to the work he did with the Western Sydney Institute of TAFE and the substantial expansion of the TAFE college at Mount Druitt. Further, Jim and the honourable member for Mount Druitt played a leading role in the establishment of Chifley College, a great multicampus college for the young pupils of Western Sydney.
I well recall that, when we ran into a few hiccups and had to delay the establishment of Chifley College by a couple of years, Jim would come into my office and I would get, "What are you doing about this? When are 160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 April 2003 we going to get on with the job?" I took it very seriously, and it is out of a commitment to him that Chifley College was established. It will always be an example of the sterling contribution Jim Anderson made to his electorate. As has been said by others, he was always at high schools and primary schools around the electorate. We should remember his great commitment to literacy, to which the honourable member for Mount Druitt made reference at Jim's funeral. Jim's commitment to literacy and his work in primary schools while still Mayor of Blacktown before becoming the State member was very much a forerunner of the Reading Recovery Program.
We have heard about the many sides of Jim Anderson. Apart from his great contribution to his electorate and his great love of his mother country he never forgot where he came from or the values he learned as a young man before migrating to Australia. In December 2000 when Martin McGuinness, the then Minister for Education in the Power Sharing Executive and member of the Northern Ireland Assembly—both of which are now suspended—came to Australia Jim insisted that I meet with him. Martin McGuinness gave me a book entitled Nor Meekly Serve My Time, which refers to the H block struggle between 1976 and 1981, particularly the great hunger strike of 1980. In many ways the title Nor Meekly Serve My Time sums up the great contribution by Jim Anderson to his country and his homeland, Australia, his constituents, this Chamber and the many individuals he has touched.
On my behalf and on behalf of the Parliament of New South Wales, and as has been expressed already by all individuals who have spoken today, I express to Kathleen, Robert, Rhona and Kevin, and the grandchildren our sincere condolences. When I rang you, Kathleen, on the day of Jim's passing I could not get the words out. It is about the only time I can recall that I was not able to speak. Today all of us have regained our composure, but the feelings of sadness and loss are still with us. We extend to you our heartfelt and very sincere condolences in that regard. It is appropriate and common at times like this to conclude with a prayer "May he rest in peace." I think we all believe that Jim is resting in peace. I would like to implore another prayer and that is that he may continue to look down upon us with a smile that is so much indelibly burned in each of our hearts and minds. That is the way in which we will remember him.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.34 p.m. until Thursday 1 May 2003 at 10.00 a.m.