4396
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Tuesday 27 November 2007
______
The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.
The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Kerry Shine, the Queensland Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Fair Trading, a guest of the Minister for Fair Trading. I welcome him to the New South Wales Parliament. I also note the presence in the gallery of the former Federal member for Eden-Monaro, Bob Whan, who is no stranger to the corridors of this place.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor:
MARIE BASHIR Office of the Governor Governor Sydney 2000
Professor Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Assembly that she re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 16 November 2007.
16 November 2007
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2007 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment (Novice Drivers) Bill 2007 Coal Acquisition Legislation Repeal Bill 2007 Murray-Darling Basin Amendment Bill 2007 Surveillance Devices Bill 2007 War Memorial Legislation Amendment (Increased Penalties) Bill 2007 Crimes Amendment (Consent—Sexual Assault Offences) Bill 2007
DEATH OF BERNIE BANTON, AM
Ministerial Statement
Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.18 p.m.]: I place formally on the record of this House what we all know and what we all mourn this day: Bernie Banton is gone, killed by the disease, by the poison, against which he fought for so long. Bernie died during Asbestos Awareness Week, a fact that speaks most eloquently for itself. He died in the very week we were, and are, going to unveil a major expansion of the proposed Asbestos Diseases Research Institute, which I announced with Bernie last year. He died with the ink still drying on the deathbed settlement he fought so hard to make a thing of the past. On the positive side, if there could be said to be one, Bernie's final days saw him acknowledged in the first words of a new Prime Minister as the symbol of everything that is good and fair and decent about this country.
Today we add to Mr Rudd's tribute in the nation's oldest Parliament with our words of reflection and with our silent prayer and contemplation. We will pay further tribute through a State funeral which I had the sad privilege of extending to Bernie's widow, Karen, this morning. Some people think that we offer State funerals too easily. I note that Great Britain has given only one in the past century, and that was to Winston Churchill. We should love a country where State funerals are given to the Victor Changs, the Slim Dustys, the Peter Brocks and the Bernie Bantons. That says everything about them, and it says a fair bit about Australians too. Accolades are all very well. Bernie had become quite familiar with them over the past few years—familiar, but 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4397 completely unaffected. As was so obvious when I met him recently to say goodbye, Bernie faced death with the same courage and determination that he faced the fight against James Hardie: without complaint and, knowing that he had only a little time left, still thinking of others, those who would be left behind—his wife, Karen, his family, and the other workers facing that terrible, miserable disease.
Bernie became the public face of a campaign for justice for all asbestos disease sufferers. It was his transparent courage, his obvious suffering and his imminent mortality that brought him the affection of so many and gave his campaign the moral firepower that alone could humble a corporate giant and right a gigantic wrong. Bernie was just 61 when he died this morning. He should still have been at work and he should have been able to look forward to a happy retirement with Karen, Adam, and the rest of his family. He should have been able to look forward to seeing his 11 grandchildren grow up. That has not happened. It simply remains for us to say goodbye, and to echo the words of Mr Rudd last Saturday night: Mate, you are not going to be forgotten in this place. He will not be forgotten by any of us.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [2.23 p.m.]: I join with the Premier and all members of this House in formally acknowledging the death of Bernie Banton and extending condolences to his wife, Karen, and their family. I congratulate the State Government on offering Bernie's family a State funeral. It will be a fitting occasion for the State to join in commemorating a remarkable man— because he truly was a remarkable Australian. In the words of Henry Lawson, he was one of the simple heroes of common life. Bernie was someone who faced great adversity and, besides thinking of himself and his family, he extended enormous service to the wider community beyond.
Bernie Banton was always a joy to meet; he was someone who was always ready to lend support to worthwhile causes across the community. I used to see him regularly at the Trish Multiple Sclerosis Research Foundation annual dinner that I attend. He was due to be at the dinner this year; he paid for his ticket, but he could not be there because he was sick. I remember being in the dining room of this Parliament with him a few years ago when he came to this place to help raise money for the family of a parliamentary library worker who had committed suicide.
I acknowledge the support for Bernie Banton and his cause by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, a partnership that advanced the cause of workers and employers. I will never—and would never—deny the appropriate right of unions to act in the wider community interest and their right to be congratulated on that. The advance in this matter for workers is obvious; the message for employers should be equally obvious. We live in a nation where good employers, like good workers, vastly outweigh rogue ones. This case sent a very strong message about the unacceptability of those employers who refuse to support their workers or who seek to deny them their rights and entitlements.
Bernie Banton's life over the past six years has been an example of those who show courage and selflessness in the face of adversity. His story is well known. His battle for justice for himself and on behalf of others is rightly applauded. Of the 137 employees who worked in his section of James Hardie Industries fewer than a handful are still alive. Bernie Banton's story is an Australian story. It is another example of the spirit of mateship personified. It sums up all Henry Lawson wrote about mateship, it helps to define the Australian character, and I am pleased on behalf of all members of this place to extend condolences to his family and remind the House that it is because of that special spirit that he is owed a State funeral.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) and General Business Notice of Motion (for Bills) given.
QUESTION TIME
______
DEATH OF SHARON HOLLOWAY
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister explain to the Holloway family, who are in the gallery this afternoon and whose 39-year-old daughter Sharon and her unborn son died when taken to Campbelltown Hospital in June this year, why five months on the family still have no answers on how or why she died? 4398 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I extend my sincere condolences to the family and I undertake to seek further information to establish why results are still forthcoming in this matter.
[Interruption]
If Opposition members are serious about the plight of this family they have an opportunity to raise this matter with me at any point in time.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. On 16 November you were written to about this matter.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Health has the call.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I undertake to obtain information about this case and to report back to the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.
CHINA AND INDIA BUSINESS MISSION
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: My question is directed to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the House about the success of the recent New South Wales business mission to China and India?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The New South Wales Government is focused on attracting more investment and job opportunities into this State and on strengthening our bilateral relationships with China and India. It is also focused on the booming economies of the economic superpowers China and India and the opportunities they represent. China, which is our largest trading partner, will be a strong source of future investment, tourism and students, and India is our fastest growing export market. The economies of those two countries, two great nations, offer great potential for the future prosperity of the people of New South Wales, which is why a delegation was formed to visit both China and India. A delegation comprising representatives from business, tourism and all the universities in New South Wales travelled to Guangzhou, New Delhi and Mumbai. It was the biggest delegation ever to leave our shores and larger than the recent delegation to India led by the Prime Minister.
Our visit to China was principally to strengthen our sister-state relationship with Guangdong Province, our most important bilateral trading relationship. I cannot overemphasise the importance of our sister-state relationship, a relationship of 28 years standing, with the economic driving force of China. Guangdong Province is China's economic powerhouse and a major player in the world economy. Representatives from Australian companies such as BHP Billiton and other coalmining and steelmaking companies were on the delegation. Representatives from Westpac, another major financial institution, were on the delegation, along with representatives of AMP, information technology companies, and the tourism industry. They understand the importance of strengthening the relationship with China and India.
Wine exporters such as Draytons and Windowrie Estate participated in the mission and will benefit from the commissioning of a new temperature-controlled warehouse, the first of its kind, that has been opened in Guangzhou. That great new facility will make it easier for New South Wales wine producers to export their products. Australian wines are now placed second behind French wines. With those sorts of initiatives Australian and New South Wales wines will overtake French wines in the not-too-distant future. China is also our fastest growing market for tourism. Accompanying us on the mission were representatives from Tourism NSW, Stella Travel Services and the Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau. In Guangzhou, New South Wales and China UnionPay, one of China's largest financial institutions, struck an agreement to promote tourism.
Also on the delegation were senior representatives from all universities in New South Wales, a sign of the importance that our higher educational institutions place on our relationships with China and India. Whilst in Guangdong the delegation was able to establish a partnership, as a result of which the Australia-China Centre for Research in Traditional Chinese Medicines will sign a memorandum of understanding with Sun Yat-Sen University, the University of Sydney and the University of Western Sydney.
Mr Andrew Fraser: What about Southern Cross University? 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4399
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Coffs Harbour should remain calm; I will come to Southern Cross University in a moment. Sun Yat-Sen University, the University of Sydney and the University of Western Sydney will establish a joint professorial chair in traditional Chinese medicine to undertake research and translate that research into treatment for diseases such as cancer, diabetes and other chronic conditions. That represents enormous potential for learning and for breakthrough research being translated into new treatments. That multimillion-dollar arrangement is just one example of our universities establishing a research and cooperative relationship with their colleagues in China.
Whilst we were in Guangdong the tourism representatives were able to launch www.sydneyaustralia.com, an international website that uses the much-loved global phrase that Sydney is the gateway for visitors, tourism, business and information to New South Wales and Australia. That website promotes New South Wales as a great place in which to invest and to do business, but also to study and take holidays. India is now the world's fourth largest economy in purchasing power and it is our fastest growing export market. The Government has implemented a number of initiatives. Rolta, one of India's leading information and technology companies, chose Sydney as the place to establish its Asia-Pacific headquarters—a platform for expansion into our region. Wipro is another Indian multinational information technology company—
Ms Virginia Judge: An excellent company.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the member for Strathfield said, Wipro is an excellent company. Let me tell members how good that company is. It employs 70,000 people around the world, has a turnover of $US3 billion, and it has a presence in New South Wales.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray-Darling will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am happy to announce an additional 50 jobs in information technology in Parramatta and in Western Sydney as a result of our relationship with Wipro, a significant addition of future high-paying, high-skilled jobs. New South Wales has world-class status in its delivery of services. Dickson Rothschild, one of the leading architectural firms that was represented on the delegation, won the tender to help design the new international airport at New Delhi. The Leighton group, another great company based in New South Wales, signed a $1.5 billion infrastructure and mining deal in Guangdong. Woolworth's, the nation's largest retailer and another of our great companies, established a joint venture with the Tata group.
Tata, which is India's largest company and one of the biggest companies in the world, employs 100,000 people around the world. Given this company's extraordinary growth, every year it has to recruit an additional 20,000 workers around the world. Tata has a turnover in excess of $US6 billion and is already represented in this State and this country. Strengthening our relationship with Tata and securing opportunities for it in New South Wales will mean that we can grab a share of the workforce of 20,000 that is recruited around the world. The message that we gave to Tata, Wipro and Rolta was: There is no better place to expand your business than in Sydney and in New South Wales. That is the same message we gave to the Steel Authority of India, which wants to buy our raw materials as India undergoes massive transformation and economic modernisation.
The economic miracle in India and China will present enormous opportunities for New South Wales companies to export their services, products and raw materials to those countries and for global companies to use New South Wales as a platform for global expansion. It explodes the myth that the emergence of China and India as economic superpowers is a one-way street to outsource into India and China. That is wrong. By carving out our slice of the globalisation and economic transformation of India and China means enormous opportunities for jobs and investment in New South Wales and Australia.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will cease injecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What is happening in India and China means jobs and investment here: it is not one-way outsourcing of jobs to those countries. The emergence of companies like Tata and global superpowers means opportunities for jobs and investment in this State. Our mission was to lay the foundation for further investment and job opportunities in New South Wales. I look forward to updating the House on further developments and initiatives following the trade mission.
WESTMEAD MORGUE PATHOLOGY SERVICES
DEATH OF SHARON HOLLOWAY
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I direct my question to the Minister for Health and again refer to Sharon Holloway's death. Why did the Minister fail to act on this leaked New South Wales Health document, which 4400 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 warned of continuing problems at Westmead morgue, including an increasing backlog and the prospect of a number of outstanding cases continuing to mount as the autopsy load of pathologists prevented them completing reports to families like the Holloways?
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The chief health officer has advised that forensic pathology services have a recurrent budget of around $11.25 million a year jointly funded by New South Wales Health and the New South Wales Attorney General's Department. Post-mortems for metropolitan areas, complicated cases and deaths examinable by the State Coroner's Office are conducted at one of three large centres: the Department of Forensic Medicine at Glebe, Westmead and John Hunter Hospital. The forensic facility at the John Hunter Hospital site has just been completed. This new facility will enable the expansion of services in that area and areas to the north and west of the State to cater for future requirements. The major challenge facing forensic pathology services in Australia and around the world is the training, recruitment and retention of qualified medical staff.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Bathurst to cease interjecting.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: My point of order is relevance, Standing Order 129. This is a memo about the potential closure of Westmead morgue and the lack of pathologists. Please just do not read your own briefing note. Answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has been making introductory remarks. She may continue.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I am advised that New South Wales Health is continuing to work closely with the Royal Australasian College of Pathologists and the Australian Government to increase the forensic pathology workforce available to New South Wales. These initiatives include the provision of additional training positions and the examination of options to reduce the barriers to overseas-trained forensic pathologists practising in Australia.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Answer the question.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has an absolute hide to come in here and talk about health care and to talk about health services in New South Wales. The Coalition has had one policy in 10 years—hospital boards—and the people of Australia have spoken again.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to state her point of order clearly.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: My point of order is parliamentary behaviour. With the family of this young woman in the gallery, that is a disgraceful way for the Minister to perform.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to resume her seat. There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to direct her contribution through the Chair.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The Government recently commissioned an external review to prepare a detailed services plan for forensic pathology services across New South Wales.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I am advised that the plan will consider the optimum configuration of services to meet the current and future needs of the New South Wales coronial justice system.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr Andrew Constance: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has concluded her answer. Does the member for Bega still seek to take a point of order? 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4401
Mr Andrew Constance: I did actually seek the call before the Minister concluded her answer.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition was interjecting at the time.
Mr Andrew Constance: My concern is that the Holloways sit in the gallery today and have not had an answer to that question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bega will resume his seat.
PLANNING REFORM
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: I address my question to the Minister for Planning. Can the Minister inform the House of progress on the Government's efforts to improve the planning system in New South Wales?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I can inform the House that today I released a discussion paper containing more than 90 recommendations that will improve the planning system in New South Wales. It is not just a spring clean: these are the biggest improvements to the planning system in nearly 30 years. It is time to remove the clutter and create a twenty-first century planning system benefiting homes in every suburb and, of course, the state economy as well. In recent months I have spent a lot of time talking to ordinary people who use the planning system as well as architects, planners, building certifiers, mayors and council general managers. They tell me we need a better planning system. They have expressed support already for many aspects of the proposed improvements.
We will now seek wider comment until February 2008. I particularly would like to hear from mums and dads about how these changes will make their lives easier, as they lodge the bulk of development applications worth less than $100,000, which constitutes two-thirds of all applications in New South Wales. Families want to improve their single biggest asset, the family home, with minor capital works, but often dread lodging development applications because they know it could take months and even years to be resolved. We have tailored these improvements to their needs.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I would have thought this matter is of great significance to every member in the House.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: First, we propose a greater use of complying development. A certificate for a complying development typically takes only 10 days to be issued compared to a normal small application, which can take well over 60 days on average, but often much longer. Our improvements will see 50 per cent of applications subject to complying certificates determined within 10 days. Second, we will modernise the system by expanding e-planning across New South Wales. Parents are short on time and to help remove some of the stress from home renovations families eventually will be able to log on at home to see what stage their application has reached. This system already works well in Pittwater and Warringah councils.
Third, another key initiative is to provide for faster and cheaper reviews of smaller planning applications when a small application is stalled or lost in a bureaucracy. Of course, this would occur in a cheap and fast fashion without the need for recourse to lawyers or without having to go to the Land and Environment Court, which can be costly and intimidating. Under our proposals, for a fee of a few hundred dollars a planning arbitrator could review smaller development applications within 21 days and provide a decision within a further 14 days thereafter. Fourth, another key reform is better assessment and processing of local plans. We want to reduce processing times for legitimate rezonings by tailoring the assessment process for local environmental plans to match the size and complexity of the proposal.
Finally, the changes propose to delegate more than 80 per cent of projects currently determined by the Minister for Planning to a new Planning Assessment Commission. The commission would include a panel of experts, with three experts sitting together to deal with difficult development applications. It will offer an independent, alternative way to deal with complex developments, and the panel's expertise can be matched to the specific proposal to be considered. It will allow the Minister to focus on more strategic issues within the planning system as a whole. Significant regional projects worth more than $50 million and Crown applications could be dealt with by joint regional planning panels comprising local government representation, with assessment reports prepared by council planning staff. These will be modelled on the successful Central Sydney Planning Committee, which has dealt with major developments in Sydney since 1989. Local applications still 4402 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 would be determined by council or by independent hearing and assessment panels appointed by councils at the discretion of local councils.
I am talking about the biggest improvements in planning in New South Wales in nearly three decades. The improvements focus on small development applications—home renovations, a new classroom at a local school, a friend's new brick barbecue, a backyard garage. I hope these changes will make life less complicated and less stressful for families who are dealing with our planning system and that at the same time they will better protect the amenity of neighbours. I urge community members to have their say between now and February when the paper will be turned into draft legislation.
PORT MACQUARIE BASE HOSPITAL
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. As the Port Macquarie Base Hospital was forced to cancel elective surgery earlier this month, after receiving no additional beds in the last allocation and no increase in full-time staff or two years—
Mr Morris Iemma: You sold it!
Mr ANDREW STONER: You bought it back and you are ruining it. You have ruined it.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will cease interjecting. Members on the Government benches will come to order. The Leader of The Nationals will ask his question. I call the member for Miranda to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I had better begin again. As Port Macquarie Base Hospital was forced to cancel elective surgery earlier this month, after receiving no additional beds in the last allocation and no increase in full-time staff for two years, despite more than 9,000 people moving to the area, will the Minister for Health now admit that the Royal North Shore Hospital is just the tip of the iceberg and that health services right across New South Wales are in crisis?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The Premier will cease interjecting.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The New South Wales Government is increasing funding to the Port Macquarie hospital and we are doing that under a record budget—$12.5 billion this year, which represents nearly a third of the State budget—and our contribution continues to rise.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Kogarah to order. I call the member for Wakehurst to order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Only two weeks ago I announced an additional 250 beds in hospitals across the State to take the pressure off busy emergency departments.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: What we are seeing today is the absolute height of hypocrisy from the New South Wales Opposition. We have just seen a Federal election where the Federal Coalition managed to go to the polls without talking about public hospital funding and without committing any additional funding, despite acknowledging the increase in demand in public hospitals and despite confirming the fact that the Federal Government's contribution to public hospitals had slipped to 42 per cent.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the Chamber will cease calling out.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: That is not our figure. That is the figure from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, an independent third party that has identified that the Federal Liberal Government's contribution to public hospitals collapsed to 42 per cent.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals has asked his question. I have given him some latitude. He should not seek to extend that latitude further. The Premier will cease interjecting.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: That represents $750 million a year to New South Wales, the amount by which we were being underfunded by John Howard and the Federal Government in Canberra. I repeat: $750 million! What did the New South Wales Opposition say to that? 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4403
Mr John Watkins: Nothing!
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Nothing! Not a word!
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will cease interjecting.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Not once did the New South Wales Opposition stand up for the people of New South Wales and make out the case for an increased Commonwealth contribution to public hospitals in New South Wales.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Epping will cease interjecting.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Yet a matter of days after the Federal election, when the silence of the Opposition was palpable on this issue, they come into this Chamber and try to lay blame at the feet of the State Government, which at every turn is meeting its contribution by increased funding.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: On the weekend the people of Australia spoke on the Federal Government's style of politics. One of the issues of most concern to people is public health care. We saw some interesting and incisive comments by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales in the Sydney Morning Herald. In a rare moment of clarity the Leader of the Opposition said, " … it was clear the party had gone too far with its WorkChoices legislation."
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. The question was quite specific. It relates to the Port Macquarie Base Hospital and the Minister cancelling elective surgery. She should answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to return to the leave of the question.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The Leader of the Opposition went on to say—
Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: You have just directed the Minister to return to the leave of the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have not heard what the Minister wants to say, but I will listen carefully.
Mr Chris Hartcher: She does not look at you. She looks at the camera.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The member for Terrigal does not want to hear this. The Leader of the Opposition said:
I think there were a number of areas where they went beyond what the public expected and WorkChoices is one of them.
The question for the Leader of the Opposition is whether he will admit that cuts to funding of public hospitals is another one.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: My point of order is twofold. First, the Minister is canvassing your ruling. Second, the Minister must identify anything that she is quoting from. It is not the practice of this House to read from newspapers.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I listened carefully to what the Minister said.
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! I am ruling on the point of order. There is no point of order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: There will be a great deal of soul-searching on the Opposition side of the House. The New South Wales Opposition will have to acknowledge that it has failed in its responsibility to stand up for the people of New South Wales. The silence from the Opposition side of the Chamber is deafening 4404 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 and palpable, but consider the State Government's record. Under the New South Wales Government's predictable surgery program, to which I was able to allocate an additional $19 million this year to improve performances, long wait and urgent surgery waiting lists have been reduced to almost zero. On that point I congratulate the hardworking surgeons and nurses of New South Wales who have ensured we have been able to maintain those high standards.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.
RAIL SAFETY TECHNOLOGY TESTING
Mr PAUL McLEAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Will he update the House on testing of the new safety technology on the rail network?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Iemma Government is absolutely committed to rail safety. We have significantly improved safety since Justice McInerney's report into the Waterfall tragedy. Part of the Government's response to that accident was the creation of the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator, which is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of recommendations from the Waterfall inquiry.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Ninety-four per cent of the recommendations in the last quarterly report of the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator have been implemented. Of the remaining recommendations, RailCorp is close to closure on three more. Much of the remainder of the recommendations depend on work currently being done at the national level.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Willoughby to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator is keeping a vigilant, ever-watchful eye on RailCorp to ensure that the report's implementation remains on track. One of the most complex of Justice McInerney's recommendations relates to a safety system called automatic train protection. This recommendation required detailed consideration to find the best technology to suit our complex rail network.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order for the second time.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: RailCorp has completed a comprehensive review of the automatic train protection systems that operate throughout the world and examined 65 of those that are currently in use. The review identified that technology based on the European Train Control System is likely to best suit the requirements of the Greater Sydney rail network. The European Train Control System is designed to slow down a train before it passes a danger point at speed. Today I advise the House that testing of this technology has begun on empty trains in the Blue Mountains. Testing will use equipment supplied by three providers: InterOp, which is a joint venture between Westinghouse and Bombardier, Seimens, and a consortium of Alstom and the United Group.
The technology that is being tested is state of the art. It works by analysing the speed and breaking pattern of the train and by warning the driver and automatically applying the brakes if it senses that there might be danger. Our rail system already has a form of automatic train protection involving a network of trips that will stop a train that runs a red signal. But the advanced automatic train protection, or ATP, system being trialled does not wait for the train to pass a signal before it acts. The system intervenes automatically; it will slow down the train if the driver does not slow down sufficiently when approaching a red signal or fails to follow speed limits on the track. The system has been deployed successfully throughout a number of European countries and is being rolled out in India, China and other Asian nations. The automatic train protection system also has the added potential to provide high levels of reliability, real-time train management and much better passenger information systems. The Government has allocated $16.5 million to the testing, and it will take a number of years to complete.
I was thinking about things that will take a number of years to complete, and I was most interested to read in yesterday's edition of the Australian newspaper an article by David Barnett. He wrote that he believes Kevin Rudd will be Prime Minister for a number of years. I am not sure whether he believes it will be six or nine years, but I agree that "a number of years" is accurate. David Barnett went on to say: 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4405
[John Howard's] legacy could well be the destruction of the NSW Liberal Party.
He continued:
He has presided over the country while a religious faction has been at work within his party …
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will resume his seat.
Mr Andrew Fraser: My point of order relates to Standing Order 70, which states:
A Member may only refer to or quote from a debate or proceeding of the current session in either House or newspaper report of such debate or proceeding if the reference for quotation is brief and … relevant to the matter under discussion …
Mr Speaker, I put it to you that the Minister's comments are not relevant to the question asked.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Premier to return to the leave of the question.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I think my comments are relevant because people are railing against John Howard. The final cost of the automatic train protection system will be known after the testing phase but it is likely to be hundreds of millions of dollars. The three proponents will now have a chance to prove that their system is interoperable with each other's trackside systems. The tests will take place on three separate sections of the Blue Mountains line between Penrith and Mount Victoria. That is between the Federal seat of Lindsay and the Federal seat of Macquarie—Bennelong is somewhere else. These sections were chosen for their ability to test a diverse range of operating conditions without interfering with regular passenger services. The test trains will operate between timetabled services and will not carry CityRail passengers. Once the testing is complete a final assessment report will be produced, and the business case for implementation will be prepared for consideration by the RailCorp board in 2008. Automatic train protection will build on the numerous mechanisms already in place to prevent speeding, such as better driver competence and training, the current signalling system, mechanical train stops, and the vigilance system that is fitted to all our CityRail trains.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 57, which refers to tedious repetition. Precisely the same announcement was made in May 2007.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order for the second time.
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order for the third time.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I would be interested to know whether the member for Goulburn agrees with the assessment in the Australian because she was quoted on the ABC as saying after the weekend's result that she believed the Liberals had "won the campaign"—just like Sri Lanka won the last two tests!
Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on the Government benches will remain silent.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: You have already ruled that the Minister's comments were not relevant to the question asked.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the Minister to return to the leave of the question. 4406 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I will, Mr Speaker. Eventually the rail line through the Southern Highlands and Goulburn will also receive that level of protection. That is why Goulburn is significant to my answer. I think the member for Goulburn will be most appreciative of that. She will therefore have to stop appearing on cooking shows on WIN television, demonstrating how to bake scones. I urge members to watch those shows. They will see the member for Goulburn giving lessons about scone baking. They are starting to speak of the member for Goulburn as the Nigella Lawson of Norwood, the Margaret Fulton of Moss Vale or, of course, the Betty Crocker of Bowral.
CITYRAIL OVERCROWDING
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. When the Auditor-General's latest report reveals that overcrowding on peak train services has doubled, why is the Minister's only response to triple the overcrowding target instead of fixing the problem?
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for East Hills to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: That was a very confusing question, which I found hard to understand—but then I have been finding it hard to concentrate since Saturday night. There was an earthquake in my electorate on Saturday night. The State seat of Ryde is in the seat of Bennelong.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Willoughby will stop calling out.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I think the issue of overcrowding was at the heart of the member's question. We have heard the message loud and clear from our customers about the train system, and we are improving customer service for the hundreds of thousands of people who are flooding back to the rail system. For passengers on the most popular trains, good customer service involves providing seats for them. We acknowledge that. We acknowledge also that peak train services are crowded. It has probably always been that way, but we owe a responsibility to our customers to reduce that level of crowding. That is why I have announced—this is not tedious repetition because, as I said earlier, good news bears repeating—that we will increase the capacity of the CityRail network by 16 per cent over the next seven years. We will be putting a massive 20,000 seats onto the system to soak up some of the growth in patronage on the CityRail network. The number of people who are returning to our CityRail system has substantially increased by about 3.7 per cent in the past 18 months or so.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Willoughby will stop calling out.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: She should, Mr Speaker, because this is good news for the travelling public. As we draw back about 10 million extra customers over 12 months, we will face some challenges. We are working towards delivering a much better rail system for our customers. The independent assessment of the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator identified only one area where consumer satisfaction had decreased. It was overcrowding, and that is why we have a plan about it. But people said in our customer survey that every other aspect was getting better.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cessnock to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: It is such a shame that the member for Willoughby is always negatively running down the public transport system, which is so critical to the working men and women of New South Wales—the same working men and women who voted for Kevin Rudd in overwhelming numbers on Saturday night.
WESTERN SYDNEY WATER RECYCLING
Mr DAVID BORGER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Water Utilities. What is the latest information on the Government's plan to save our precious drinking water by providing recycled water to industry in Western Sydney?
Mr NATHAN REES: I thank the member for Granville for his question and commend him for his continuing interest in this matter. As members will know, our Metropolitan Water Plan has four central elements: more than 70 massive rainwater harvesting schemes across greater Sydney; a green-powered desalination plant, delivering an endless supply of fresh drinking water; sensible long-term water-saving rules and rebates for rainwater tanks. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4407
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for South Coast to order.
Mr NATHAN REES: —and the three largest recycling schemes in Australia: five billion litres at BlueScope steel in the Illawarra, two billion litres at Australia's largest residential recycling scheme at Rouse Hill and 27 billion litres for environmental flows out of the Western Sydney recycling project. We also have other schemes ready to go. Each year Sydney Water recycles approximately 22 billion litres of water and that figure will rise to 70 billion litres by 2015. The Government is currently constructing a recycled water grid that will ultimately supply 100 billion litres of water to new homes across the metropolitan area. This will add up to approximately 16 per cent of the total future drinking needs of Sydney's growing population.
The spine of the grid is the $130 million pipeline from Liverpool to Ashfield, which is now nearing completion. A vital vertebrae of that spine will be the Rosehill Industrial Water Scheme, which will supply industrial water to industrial customers instead of what they are getting now, which is precious drinking water that we need elsewhere. The preferred tenderer for the Rosehill facility is AquaNet Sydney Pty Ltd, a joint venture between Babcock and Brown, Singapore Power International and Veolia Water Australia. This company will supply approximately 4.3 billion litres of treated water annually to industrial and commercial customers in the Rosehill and Smithfield areas of Western Sydney. AquaNet will supply, if current negotiations are satisfactorily concluded, Bassel Australia, Boral, James Hardie, Rosehill Gardens, Visy Paper and Marubeni Australia Power Services.
AquaNet will build a recycling plant at Fairfield on the present site of Sydney Water's storm sewage facility, which treats effluent with a combination of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. A 20-kilometre pipe network will connect the component facilities, in part made up of some of Alinta's disused gas mains. This will minimise disruption to the surrounding suburbs and harm to the environment, and will significantly benefit the local community and its business economy. Over time the scheme will expand, and a further 3 billion litres of recycled water will come into play. The contract will be signed later this year or early next year. Work will begin next year and the first new water will flow at the end of 2010 or the start of 2011. On this side of the House a big plan—16 per cent increase in recycling for water—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will stop calling out.
Mr NATHAN REES: —up to 28 per cent from the desalination plant and 3 per cent from our water- saving rules. On this side of the House a big plan but on that side of the House no plan. The Government is ensuring that Sydney's drinking water supply is drought proof. Speaking of flows, we saw a flow away from the Opposition and its party on Saturday night, which seems to have escaped some of those opposite. On Saturday night it was said on AM Radio:
The fact is we actually won the campaign … I don't think we can say the campaign was the problem … I think the problem was … if there was a problem … then it was "about time" … factor.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. The question was specifically about the Government's plans in relation to recycling and other parts of the Water Strategy. I ask you to direct the Minister to the leave of that question.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have not heard the quote that the Minister was about to read to enable me to decide if it is, in fact, relevant.
Mr NATHAN REES: I will move on. I am happy to talk about recycling because one person opposite who is as happy as members of the Government today is the member for Vaucluse, who will not be forced into a by-election, given that Malcolm got up; a by-election that would be backed by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the type of recycling that is interesting on this side of the House. It was a masterstroke of the member for Vaucluse to enter the national energy debate with a few days to go in the Federal campaign. It worked a treat!
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to my previous point of order. Clearly the Minister is giving information that is totally irrelevant to the question. The question was about water.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. I ask the Minister to return to the leave of the question.
Mr NATHAN REES: John Howard has some time on his hands over the coming days when I am sure he will pen a thank-you note to the member for Vaucluse. 4408 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
MILTON ORKOPOULOS ELECTORATE OFFICER WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that electorate officer Gillian Sneddon has made a claim for workers compensation based on psychological trauma sustained after she assisted police investigating alleged child sex offences by Milton Orkopoulos that is being opposed by his Labor Government will the Premier remove any potential for conflict of interest or cover-up by the Labor Party and appoint an independent person to consider her claim?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What an absurd question asserting a cover-up!
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: An employee of Parliament—
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I do not have any information whether the person has lodged a claim, but I take at face value that the member says she has lodged a claim for workers compensation. That claim, like any other claim and every other claim, will be treated on its merits in accordance with the rules of the Parliament, the rules of employment and the law of New South Wales.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.
ADOPTED FAMILIES REUNITED
Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on efforts by the Government to reunite adopted families and related matters?
Mr KEVIN GREENE: Many of us take for granted our connections to our families, and our knowledge about our backgrounds and family history. But not everyone has easy access to this information. That is why the New South Wales Government is helping adopted children and adults to reconnect with lost family members and to find personal information. The Department of Community Services plays an important role in reuniting families and filling in the gaps in people's life stories. In 2006-07 departmental staff helped organise 190 reunions between adopted people and their birth families—an increase of 172 from the previous year.
Each person involved in an adoption has different feelings about how much contact or news he or she would like between the adoptive and birth families. This is an extremely sensitive and personal area in some people's lives and it is important that we respect the different views people hold. But adoption is becoming more open in New South Wales and the Department of Community Services can help families keep in contact—if that is what they want. The department keeps a Reunion and Information Register for birth parents, adoptive parents, adoptees and birth siblings to help find family members who were separated by adoption. Applications to the register rose from 407 in 2005-06 to 516 in 2006-07.
There are many ways birth and adoptive families can stay in touch, for example, by writing letters and emails to one another, sending photos or meeting in person. The department's Adoption Information Unit helps adopted people and birth and adoptive parents to uncover personal information. Last year, the department received more than 3,000 general inquiries about post adoption issues via phone calls, emails, letters and personal interviews—an increase on the previous year of about 6 per cent. Adoption today is a far more open process than it was in years gone by: The secrecy has gone. Today the department plays an important role in supporting families in maintaining contact when a child has been adopted. Adopted people can get help to find important medical information about their birth families, which can help them minimise hereditary health risks. Birth parents can also be reassured that their child is safe and doing well. And adoptive parents can keep in touch with what is happening in the life of their child's birth family.
WESTMEAD MORGUE PATHOLOGY SERVICES
DEATH OF SHARON HOLLOWAY
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I am advised that Karen Holloway, aged 39, was taken to Campbelltown Hospital five months ago. Karen died as a result of a complication with pregnancy. On 30 June Ms Holloway was admitted to the emergency department at Campbelltown having suffered a cardiac arrest. I am advised that the clinical notes show that there was no pulse recorded and no breathing. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4409 undertaken but was not successful. I am advised that the unborn child was also unable to be saved. I am advised by Mike Wallis, the Chief Executive of the Sydney South West Area Health Service, that he acknowledges that this has been a very difficult and painful time for the family, and he apologises for the distress that Mr and Mrs Holloway have experienced.
I am advised that the client liaison officer for Campbelltown Hospital has been in contact with Mrs Holloway and facilitated in addressing their issues of concern. The client liaison officer has contacted the Coroner's Office and the Ambulance Service of New South Wales on behalf of the family. I am advised that the Westmead forensic councillor will continue to contact the family, and the Ambulance Service of New South Wales is forwarding a response and a copy of the ambulance report to Mr and Mrs Holloway, as they have requested.
Question time concluded.
AUDIT OFFICE
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 63C of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Improving Efficiency of Irrigation Water Use on Farms—Department of Primary Industries", dated November 2007, received out of session on 21November 2007.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Regulation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 7 of 2007", dated 23 November 2007, received out of session on 23 November 2007.
PETITIONS
CountryLink Pensioner Booking Fee
Petitions requesting the removal of booking fees charged to pensioners on CountryLink services, received from Mr Greg Aplin and Mr John Williams.
Ballina High School Bus Shelter
Petition requesting that a bus shelter be constructed on public land outside Ballina High School to protect students from the weather, received from Mr Donald Page.
Inner Sydney Light Rail
Petition requesting the development of an integrated light rail network through inner Sydney, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Centrelink Student Fees
Petition opposing the new Centrelink $50 upfront fees for students and asking that other options be considered, received from Ms Pru Goward.
Lismore Base Hospital
Petitions requesting funding for stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment, received from Mr Thomas George and Mr Donald Page.
Breast Screening Funding
Petitions requesting funding for breast screening to allow access for women aged 40 to 79 years, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood. 4410 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Hornsby Palliative Care Beds
Petition requesting funding for Hornsby's palliative care beds, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Queanbeyan Hospital Land
Petition opposing the sale and rezoning of Queanbeyan Hospital land and buildings for residential purposes, received from Ms Reba Meagher.
Forster-Tuncurry Policing
Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Forster-Tuncurry, received from Mr John Turner.
Licence Laws for Older Drivers
Petitions asking for an inquiry into licence laws for older drivers and the implementation of a suitable licensing system for senior citizens, received from Mr Greg Aplin and Mr John Turner.
Pet Shops
Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Liquor Licensing Process
Petition asking that the liquor licensing process be amended to encourage and promote the development of small, local venues and a diversity of venues, received from Ms Clover Moore.
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY
Public Hospital Funding
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.25 p.m.]: My motion deserves priority because the Australian Government should hear a united voice from the New South Wales Parliament regarding its desire to work cooperatively with the Federal Government on improving health services.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lismore will cease injecting. I call the member for East Hills to order.
Ms NOREEN HAY: This matter deserves priority because we have suffered cuts to public hospital funding by the Commonwealth for almost 12 years. This matter deserves priority because members opposite have been silent on the Commonwealth's failure to fund and support public hospitals for far too long.
The SPEAKER: Order! Shortly I will call the Leader of the Opposition to make his contribution. It is appropriate that all members listen to each contribution in silence.
Ms NOREEN HAY: This matter deserves priority because the neglect of public health care by the Coalition across Australia has resulted in its being banished to opposition in every State, Territory and, indeed, nationally. A message must be sent: We stand united to work with the Federal Government to call for more funding.
[Interruption]
I say to the member for South Coast: it is about time there was a voice from New South Wales to talk to the Federal Government. We stand united to reform service delivery. We urgently need to remove duplication between the State and national governments. Members on this side of the House will not be afraid to talk to their colleagues in Canberra about the health of the people of New South Wales. We must end the blame game urgently, which is something that members opposite were not prepared to do because at last we have a Commonwealth Government that is willing to do just that.
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease injecting.
Ms NOREEN HAY: The Commonwealth Government is willing to talk to members of the New South Wales Parliament. Unlike members opposite who purport to represent the people of New South Wales and fail, 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4411 we on this side of the House represent the people of New South Wales and we will talk to our colleagues in Canberra. This matter deserves priority because Coalition members have refused point blank to criticise their Commonwealth colleagues, as we have heard today, but now they have a chance to do so. The people of New South Wales need to know that we will work cooperatively with the Commonwealth—and indeed we will. We will work to streamline care for patients between primary care, hospital care, post-hospital care and community care.
Health was one of the key issues in the recent Federal election campaign—members opposite might remember that that was not too long ago—and today the New South Wales Coalition has a chance to show whether it has learned anything at all from its most recent experience of failure. That is not to say that those opposite have not had a lot of experience with failure, but in their most recent experience of failure their Federal colleagues in Canberra—the former Federal Government—have joined them in the ranks of opposition. That is what comes from failing to listen to, and losing touch with, the people who elected them and whom they purport to represent: the people of New South Wales. At last we have a Rudd Federal Labor Government that will work with the New South Wales Labor Government to help with the funding of healthcare services.
Health Funding
The SPEAKER: Order! I hope the Leader of the Opposition will be heard with fewer interjections than the member for Wollongong.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [3.30 p.m.]: I agree with the member for Wollongong that health is a key issue in this community and it was a key issue in the Federal election campaign, which is why both Kevin Rudd and John Howard expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which State governments have run hospitals and health care along the length and breadth of this nation. The reason we have a Rudd Government today, and the reason that it has State governments, such as the Iemma Government, on health watch is that the New South Wales Government and other Labor State governments have mismanaged our hospitals and mismanaged our health systems for too long.
If members want an example of that reasoning I will advance it. However, before I put forward reasons why my motion should be accorded priority I state that no matter who is in Canberra, no matter what case is put forward, if it is put forward by someone who is incompetent it will not be heard. At the end of question time today the Minister for Health came into the House and, for the first time in five months, provided Alan and Bess Holloway with official details of their daughter's death. Today the Minister told the Holloways for the first time that their daughter had died as the result of a cardiac arrest and the inability of staff in the emergency department to resuscitate her. The Holloways had waited for five months for that response. Regrettably, the Minister called Sharon Holloway Karen, another example of the incompetence of the Minister for Health. She has absolutely no interest in the human cost of her failure, and her Government's failure, in Health.
The Minister gave further statistics, just further bad news stories, whereas, I remember them. I remember Edith Walker, the elderly woman who was treated in a storage room at Westmead Hospital. I remember Jana Horska and Mark Dreyer. I sat with them in the office of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I talked with them about their experiences at the Royal North Shore Hospital. Today I had the opportunity to meet two more people who are suffering as a result of this State Government's mismanagement of our hospital system.
On Saturday 30 June 2007 a 39-year-old single mum who was 37 weeks pregnant and who had a two- year-old child, a business banking manager for one of our major institutions, a woman who was healthy and fit, a woman who, two days before, saw her gynaecologist, and who, two days before, had dinner with her best friend of 24 years standing, woke up and found herself short of breath. She was sufficiently competent to ensure that her two-year-old child was dressed and given care. She then called an ambulance and proceeded to walk down her front stairs and put herself on the ambulance trolley. She was put into the ambulance and she spoke to her neighbour. She was taken to Campbelltown Hospital, 10 minutes away.
Despite having told her neighbour not to ring her mother because it would upset her, the neighbour rang her mother, Mrs Bess Holloway, who lives near Bateman's Bay in the electorate of the member for Bega. Mrs Bess Holloway waited 10 minutes and then she rang the hospital because she knew how long it would take the ambulance to get to the hospital. But when she rang to inquire after her daughter she was told, "She died." Mrs Holloway said, "No, no, you've got the wrong person. My daughter is 39. She is pregnant." The hospital representative said, "Yes, she died, and the baby died." 4412 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Since that time the Holloways have been trying to find out why their daughter died. Today, for the first time, they have been told it was because of a cardiac arrest. The hospital still has not explained to Alan and Bess Holloway, who know that the grandchild their daughter was expecting was a boy, why their grandson could not be delivered. A series of questions about this matter remain to be answered. We know also from the incompetent Minister for Health that in April the Minister was warned and the Department of Health was warned that there were problems at Westmead Hospital's morgue, that there were too few staff, that cases were banking up and that, although autopsies were being carried out, reports were not being produced.
This is the human face of what is happening in our health system. The Holloways have not known for five months what happened to their daughter. Mrs Holloway, despite what was said by the Minister for Health, has phoned many times. The Holloways are decent folk. They were told originally that it would take three months for the autopsy report. They waited relatively patiently, although they confess that they made a couple of calls. After that, they repeatedly called and on only one occasion has anyone from any health agency phoned the Holloways. There were always follow-up calls and too often the agencies promised to call but they did not. In April the Minister and the department were given possible solutions and options to fix the problem, but the problem was ignored.
This is another family devastated by the loss of a daughter, and devastated by the loss of an unborn child, yet the State Government continues to blame others for its problems. After last Saturday there are no excuses—there never were excuses. These matters are on the Government's head. At some stage the Government has to fix the health system in this State.
Question—That the motion of the member for Wollongong be accorded priority—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 51
Mr Amery Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Andrews Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Aquilina Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Rees Mr Borger Ms Hornery Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Shearan Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Ms Burton Mr Khoshaba Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Mr Terenzini Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr McLeay Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Ms Firth Ms Meagher Tellers, Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Mr Mor ris Mr Martin
Noes, 39
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stokes Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Page Ms Goward Mr Piccoli Mrs Hancock Mr Piper Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Provest Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Maguire
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4413
PUBLIC HOSPITAL FUNDING
Motion Accorded Priority
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.41 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the election of the new Federal Government and looks forward to working cooperatively with the Federal Government to increase funding for public hospitals after 11 years of cuts from Canberra;
(2) welcomes the opportunity to work cooperatively with the Commonwealth in the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to reduce duplication in bureaucracy and streamline services between primary care, acute hospital care and community care; and
(3) supports the establishment of a new national focus on early intervention through primary health care to improve treatment for those with chronic disease before they require acute hospital care.
I am delighted to stand before this House and welcome the overwhelming election of the Rudd Labor Government. Despite the best efforts of those opposite and their colleagues in Canberra to buck pass and blame the States for the underfunding of health care, the public saw through the Coalition's failure to stand up for New South Wales public hospitals and failure to call on its colleagues to increase funding for public hospital care. The Coalition has cemented itself as the party of opposition across the length and breadth of Australia.
Last Saturday was the end of many things, one of which was 11 years of Federal Government neglect of public health. John Howard's Government, over nearly 12 long years, gradually and effectively wound back and reduced funding of our public health system. This is a fact confirmed last month by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a fact casually acknowledged by former health Minister Tony Abbott. For almost three decades, through the Australian Health Care Agreement, the Federal Government and the States and Territories have funded the public health system equally. However, the Federal Government funded institute found that over the life of the current health care agreement the Federal Government is spending $2.2 billion less on public hospitals than the States and Territories. It has reduced its share of funding from 50 per cent to less than 45 per cent. Based on population share, this equates to a $750 million shortfall for New South Wales alone. The report shows that if the Commonwealth is to match State funding of public hospitals it must increase funding by $2.2 billion each year. The Federal Government's $750 million shortfall for New South Wales would fund the annual cost of over 9,000 year 8 registered nurses or 58,700 hip replacements—or the running of Royal North Shore Hospital for two years. While the Federal Government sat on a $17 billion surplus in 2006-07 it refused to pay its fair share of public hospital funding.
The New South Wales Government tried to instigate meaningful dialogue with Tony Abbott on this issue, but at the health Ministers conference in July this year Tony Abbott refused to discuss funding or health care reform. He made it clear that his focus was on winning the Federal election. He failed miserably on both fronts. We saw that focus on full display during the campaign. Tony Abbott made mistake after mistake, gaffe after gaffe, and became a total embarrassment to the Coalition. The Federal Coalition's health policy failed to find one extra hospital bed despite calls from State Opposition members for more beds to be opened in our public hospital system. The centrepiece of its election health policy was to introduce hospital boards. It dusted off a failed and discredited policy that promised to deliver only another layer of bureaucracy. Clearly, Tony Abbott learned nothing from the State election where the people of New South Wales delivered their verdict on this tired old policy.
The Federal Coalition also announced a vague promise to invest $250 million over four years to increase the number of aged care places across the country. There was no mention of the need to look at reform of the public health system to reduce duplication and inefficiencies; no discussion of the need to develop alternative models of care to help take the burden off our emergency departments; no commitment to reintroduce the Commonwealth dental scheme, which was heartlessly abolished by John Howard; and no funding for elective surgery. What an extraordinary performance! No longer do we have to contend with such criminal neglect of our public health system and lack of support for public health care.
Kevin Rudd's victory on Saturday is the birth of a new era of commitment and cooperation in the delivery of public health in Australia. The election of the Federal Labor Government presents a historic opportunity to reform and improve the delivery of public health services. Kevin Rudd has put a $2 billion national health reform plan on the table. This represents an immediate injection of funding into our public health system. 4414 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Mr John Williams: Not enough money.
Mr Thomas George: Not half of what we need.
Ms NOREEN HAY: Kevin Rudd has made a commitment to working with the States and Territories to reform the health system to reduce inefficiencies and duplication in the way that services are delivered. It is interesting to note that the members of the New South Wales Opposition sit here now, having had their Federal colleagues absolutely annihilated by the people of Australia on Saturday last, talking about the commitment of Federal funds towards assistance with health care delivery not being enough—this from the very mob who, when their colleagues were in government in Canberra, refused to make a call. They sat quietly while the funding to New South Wales was systematically reduced over nearly 12 years.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.
Ms NOREEN HAY: I do not want to have to keep reminding people that when the New South Wales Coalition was in government it actually closed hospitals, and now it wants to take the high moral ground. In this Chamber, time after time, I moved motions and spoke in debates asking the New South Wales Coalition to call on its mates in Canberra to increase funding of our public health system and public hospitals. Would it? No, it would not. The people have spoken. The people have not been fooled by promises made in New South Wales.
I noted some of the promises regarding what would be done on the South Coast in relation to health while New South Wales Opposition members sat idly by with their mouths tightly closed and watched a reduction in funding of our public hospitals by their Federal colleagues for almost 12 years. That was announced not by this Government but by an independent body. There are no depths to which the New South Wales Opposition members will not stoop to avoid their responsibilities. They failed to call for money. They let their mates in Canberra get away with reducing our funding and now they want to take the high moral ground. Shame on them! They should be ashamed of themselves. Opposition members should concentrate on health and on public hospitals. They should concentrate on the motion before the House and not wander off and debate other issues. They should refer to the fact that they would not ask their mates in Canberra for additional funding for hospitals.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lismore will cease interjecting.
Ms NOREEN HAY: Opposition members should refer to the former Federal Coalition Government's reduction in funding for health services. They had nothing to say about that while their Federal mates were in office. We will see.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: We will, won't we?
Ms NOREEN HAY: We will see. In March the people of New South Wales, who were not fooled by Coalition members, re-elected this Labor Government. They now have a Federal Rudd Labor Government that will work cooperatively with the New South Wales Labor Government. Members of those governments will talk to one another and work with one another to improve their financial contributions to the New South Wales public hospital system.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.50 p.m.]: What an extraordinary contribution! I would like, first, to correct a statement made by the member for Wollongong, who got her facts wrong. There has been no cut in Commonwealth funding—an issue that was acknowledged by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The percentage might have fallen but the funding has not been cut. Every year funding from the Commonwealth Government has increased.
Mr Steve Whan: What about the proportion?
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: The funding has not been cut. Let me give members the figures.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will cease interjecting.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: This year total spending on health was $52 billion, approximately 22 per cent of the Commonwealth budget, compared with 15 per cent in 1996. This year Medicare spending was $12.5 billion compared with $6 billion in 1996—a real increase of 46 per cent. Public hospital funding from the 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4415
Commonwealth was $42 billion under the current health care agreement compared with $32 billion in 1998- 2003 and $23 billion in 1993-1998.
Mr Steven Whan: Point of order—
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: Opposition members cannot stand the truth.
Mr Steven Whan: The member appears to be quoting from a prepared statement or from a press release issued by the former Federal Minister for Health. I ask her—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr Steve Whan: Instead of reading out the whole press statement she might like to table it.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I am referring to notes relating to Commonwealth Government funding increases, figures that are reported in the Commonwealth budget and in the State budget. Let me refer members to the State budget. Table 3.6 in the 2007-08 State budget reflects Commonwealth grants to the health care agreement, which shows an increase in funding every year from the Commonwealth. What does that mean? Everybody in New South Wales knows that the health system is the responsibility of the State Government. People in New South Wales are blaming this Government for its failure to provide beds.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will cease interjecting.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: This Government has cut clinicians, doctors and nurses out of the hospital system decision-making process, which is why so many clinicians are coming forward—clinicians not only from Royal North Shore Hospital but also from many other places. I refer to an article dated 23 January 2007—
Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Was that from the Daily Telegraph?
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: An article from the Daily Telegraph entitled, "Labor doctor, friend or foe" refers to Dr Andrew McDonald approaching members of the Liberal Party before he was elected to this place to talk to us about the disaster that this Government was causing in the hospital system. I know that because I was there: I am in the photograph with Dr McDonald, who approached us to talk about this Government's failures in the health area. This Government has failed to provide sufficient beds to treat patients. Since the Government has been in office it has closed more than 2,300 hospital beds. This Government has—
[Interruption]
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It is difficult for Hansard to record the proceedings because of the noise in the Chamber. I ask members to listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in silence while she makes her point.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I appreciate your intervention but Government members really do not want to hear about this. Anyone reading Hansard will see what every doctor has been saying to the parliamentary inquiry into the Royal North Shore Hospital, which has taken evidence from doctors at Royal North Shore Hospital, Liverpool Hospital, Westmead Hospital and Wagga Wagga hospital. An article on the front page of the Wagga Wagga paper refers to the establishment of an inquiry such as the one into Royal North Shore Hospital because of this Government's failure to provide sufficient beds to unblock emergency departments.
What is happening in our emergency departments? Currently about 23 per cent of patients who need hospital beds are stuck in emergency departments because so many beds are closed. The Australian Medical Association said that we need an additional 1,600 beds in New South Wales, so it is ridiculous for the Minister for Health to suggest that the opening of 250 beds will do anything to alleviate this problem. An additional 250 beds will not even touch the sides of the problem; 1,600 beds are needed immediately to unblock emergency departments. The member for Wollongong should listen to ambulance officers in her area.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection in the Chamber.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: Ambulance officers contact me regularly to tell me about this Government's failure to open a sufficient number of beds for patients in emergency departments. 4416 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Ms Noreen Hay: Of course they do. They are all running to tell you.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: Ambulance officers come into my office in droves. I am grateful for the information and the leaked documents that they and many others provide, such as the leaked document I received today from Westmead morgue, which shows that the Minister has been briefed on the crisis there.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection is not acceptable. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition directs her comments through the Chair there will be fewer opportunities for interjection.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I am certainly not talking to Government members; I prefer to talk to the chair at the back of the Chamber.
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: My point of order relates to parliamentary behaviour. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition just said that she preferred to speak to the chair at the back of the Chamber.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. I accept that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is metaphorically relying on the chair being a little higher than where she is now.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I welcome an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate but I again point out the inefficient way in which the Iemma Labor Government is running our hospital system. We have record waiting lists for elective surgery. More than 56,000 people in this State are waiting for elective surgery. A record number of patients are stuck in emergency departments because there are not enough beds. I do not deny the Government's claim that it has a record health budget. However, the trouble is that much of that budget is wasted. The inquiry into the Royal North Shore Hospital has evidence to show—this evidence is on the public record for anyone to read—that a lot of that money is going nowhere.
This Government has conducted a number of reviews but the recommendations have never been implemented. There is a lack of funding for information technology and for front-line services. Recently the Minister announced that she would increase to 22 the emergency medicine positions in our hospitals. Some years ago this State was party to the agreement on the medical workforce in emergency departments but the Government failed to implement that agreement, which is a disgrace. This is the only State—
Ms Lylea McMahon: Point of order: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the time remaining to her, should direct her remarks to—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Which standing order are you referring to?
Ms Lylea McMahon: I refer to Standing Order 129, which relates to relevance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the time remaining to her, should direct her remarks to the issue of staff—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Ms Lylea McMahon: —across Australia in relation to the previous Federal Government's lack of funding of places at university.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Shellharbour will resume her seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will finish her contribution.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: That clearly demonstrates the Government's lack of commitment and failure to understand and deal with the hospitals crisis. Today in the public gallery was the family of a woman who died recently, and still they are waiting for answers. This Government and its members waste time in this place with frivolous points of order that go nowhere and have nothing to do with the motion. This motion is flawed because it talks about cuts in Federal funding. There were no cuts in Federal funding. This motion is flawed because it does not acknowledge that the primary responsibility for running our hospitals rests within the State. This motion does not recognise the failure of the Iemma Government to provide funds where they are most needed—for doctors and nurses and to open hospital beds. This Government has totally failed the people of this State, the many hardworking doctors and nurses who have come forward to give evidence about how they refuse to work in the hospital system because this Government is a total failure. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4417
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.00 p.m.]: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the extraordinary speech given by the mover of this motion. I am afraid the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot be called extraordinary because it was ordinary in every sense of the word. She consistently demonstrates an incapacity to comprehend figures. She did so again today on the history of Howard Government funding. She does not seem to acknowledge, as the former Federal health Minister did, that the proportion of Federal funding to our hospitals has dropped to 42 per cent from being almost equal over many years. That is why this side of the House welcomes the Rudd Government's commitment to being a partner in health with New South Wales and every State Labor Government.
The Rudd Government believes, as the Australian voters believe, that people in Australia deserve more than just the negative carping criticism of the New South Wales Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Australians want to see cooperation and governments working together to bring an end to the sort of blame shifting we have seen for the last few years. That is the clear message the people in Eden-Monaro gave on Saturday. It is very clearly the message my new colleague, Mike Kelly, and I discussed in relation to where he is heading for the next few years. The Rudd Government will bring to an end the public hospital funding cuts from the mean- spirited Liberal Coalition.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray-Darling will be removed from the Chamber if he continues to interject.
Mr STEVE WHAN: We look forward to the establishment of the health reform commission and to streamlining the delivery of health care, particularly in rural areas. The two levels of government must work together to deliver incentives to general practitioners and community-based carers to keep people out of acute hospital beds. That process will build on the great work piloted already in Queanbeyan by the State Government to try to ensure elderly people are not admitted to hospital unnecessarily, solving some local primary health care problems.
Country New South Wales saw the stark difference between Labor and the Coalition regarding hospital funding. Labor understands the importance of these services. The Rudd Government said it would invest a total of $15 million to fast-track radiotherapy services at Lismore Base Hospital, bringing forward the completion date to provide that service. The Nationals promised only an extra $2 million towards those health services. Another example of Kevin Rudd's commitment to health is the provision of $18 million for capital upgrades at Grafton Base Hospital and $5 million for a general practitioner super clinic at Grafton. I might add that Queanbeyan also has a commitment to a super clinic that, I am very pleased to say, my colleague Mike Kelly was able to secure. These facilities will be provided with no strings attached, unlike the promise of the Coalition to provide money only if we went back in time and agreed to set up hospital boards to administer funding.
What was the election result on the North Coast? The result in Page has been very welcome for Labor, the seat having been won by Janelle Saffin. The voters kicked out the non-performing Nationals and instead elected a Country Labor member. Country Labor members of this House are very pleased about several new Country Labor members entering the Federal Parliament, including Mike Kelly in Eden-Monaro, Janelle Saffin in Page and, of course, Bob Debus in Macquarie. They are welcome Federal election results for the Labor Party. In addition, several previously safe Coalition seats now have turned into very marginal seats ready to be taken when people realise they would rather have a voice in a positive Labor Government, as they do in the New South Wales Government, than to have constant negative carping and whingeing.
I return to the Federal election. What did we see in country New South Wales and what were the promises from the Rudd Government? We heard commitments to increase public hospital funding and a return to funding partnerships with the States, the way it should be, but without the strings attached. What we heard from John Howard was a third-time rerun demand for inefficient hospital boards—a back-to-the-future scheme that did not do a single thing to improve workforce issues in New South Wales. Instead, we did not even get a guarantee to help fund those hospital boards! The Federal Coalition wanted the State governments to actually bear the cost of funding those boards. Where would the money come from? It would be taken from nurses and doctors. That is why the people of New South Wales again rejected the Coalition and its silly, outmoded policy for the third time, including the same proposal by the New South Wales State Opposition. It has been rejected over and over again. It is time the Opposition in this place got over its one policy for health and put together a real policy.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [4.05 p.m.]: I firmly support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The wording of this motion requires a lot of nipping and tucking and certainly inadequately describes the 4418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 existing New South Wales health situation. The motion also contains many mistruths. The member for Wollongong has been misleading in stating that there have been funding cuts for 11 years, which there certainly have not. Before I continue further in this debate I pay tribute to Bernie Banton and express my condolences to his family on his sad passing. He was a true fighter for what is right and decent.
In relation to statements from the other side of the House, I reiterate what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: Federal health funding has not been cut over the past 11 years. Total spending on health this year was $52 billion, approximately 22 per cent of the Commonwealth budget, compared with 15 per cent in 1996. Medicare spending was $12.5 billion compared with $6 billion in 1996—a real increase of 46 per cent. Overall bulk-billing rates are at record highs and general practitioner bulk-billing rates are also at high levels for children, country people and those over 65 years. This New South Wales Labor Government is an apologist for itself. Finally, there may be a speck of hope on the horizon for it to pull up its socks, which it definitely has not been doing over the past 11 years. This Government has let down the people of New South Wales. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, apart from the many reports about evidence at the Royal North Shore Hospital inquiry, she has been inundated with emails and visitors to her office door. I too have many similar examples.
I have information about a situation similar to that being debated. A man approached me a couple of months ago after his wife had died in tragic circumstances. He was told there would have to be a coronial inquiry and, indeed, he has waited five months for an answer as to why his wife died. He was very distressed that he had to bury his wife without her brain. He was very upset also that he could not discuss the matter with his children. That is another example of the poor pathology services in our hospital system. Many health professionals told the Royal North Shore Hospital inquiry that they were disgusted that ophthalmology surgery has been removed from Hornsby and many other hospitals to Royal North Shore. They cannot understand why eye surgery that could be done at any regional hospital has been transferred to a tertiary hospital that delivers trauma and other serious and intensive services.
It is very disappointing also that the Hornsby Hospital audiology clinic is closing down because staff are not being employed. Due to the neglect of the State Government, the audiology clinic will be lost to the people of Hornsby and the surrounding areas. That is a tremendous tragedy. The snapshot of health in New South Wales is absolutely diabolical. There are 2,347 fewer beds than in 1995.
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: The continual misleading of this Parliament by the member for Hornsby—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Unless the member for Wollongong is able to refer me to a standing order there is no point of order.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, there are 2,347 fewer beds than in 1995. In 1995 there were 23,536 beds compared to 21,000 beds in 2005-06. Only 37 per cent of nurses are working in public health care. Why is that? The fact is that nobody wants to work in the State's public hospitals. That is why approximately 60 per cent of nurses are not working in public health care. The State Government cannot even attract people and retain them after they complete their initial education at undergraduate level. That is an appalling reflection on the Government, which blames everybody except itself for its appalling failure in health. It should work much harder. Its current arguments are not convincing.
Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [4.10 p.m.]: For almost 12 years the New South Wales Government has been struggling to work with a Federal Government that has refused to work with the States to create a healthcare system that will meet the changing health needs of all Australians and serve them in the future. Health needs and disease rates for all ages have changed dramatically over the past 11 years of the Howard Government, yet the Federal Government has remained unmoved. That has led to a situation in which the former Federal Government was underfunding State public health systems to the tune of $2.2 billion and, I think in a perverse way, regarded that as efficiency. The Federal Government was the government that ripped off the people of New South Wales by $750 million a year and refused to pay its fair share of the Australian Health Care Agreement over the five-year 2003-08 period.
In contrast, the New South Wales Government has never previously spent more on health than it does now: one-third of the New South Wales State budget. The situation over the past five years has been destructive and unsustainable. That is why, both as a member of the New South Wales Labor Government and as a doctor who has worked in the public health system for 32 years, I am so incredibly pleased to welcome the new Federal 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4419
Labor Government. Last Saturday was a great day for our people. We can now work cooperatively with the Federal Government to address challenges that have arisen over the past 11 years.
During the Federal election campaign Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd—doesn't that sound great!— and the Labor Party demonstrated a vision for the future of the public health system rather than a gradual reduction in percentage funding that would have been inevitable under the Abbott-Howard regime, and the people knew that. Under John Howard and Tony Abbott, Australian health care agreements became mired in the past and were unable to cope with the challenges of the changing demographics of Australia or the changes to medical technology. For example, the Federal Coalition tied funding to hospital admissions. That created a perverse incentive to treat people in hospitals instead of investing in preventative care to stop people from becoming sick in the first place—with which I am sure the member for Hornsby, who has a masters degree in bioethics, would agree—and instead of investing in community care to keep people out of hospital when they did not need to be there.
With no help from John Howard, State governments have been developing alternative models of care to treat people in the community and to sustain our healthcare system into the twenty-first century. For example, our paediatric ambulatory care service in Campbelltown was 100 per cent funded by the New South Wales Government. This represents an enormous improvement in health care for our children. The parents love it as they are able to remain safely at home with their children, and it is a much safer and effective way in which to meet the changing needs of our population.
Fortunately for our people, the Rudd Labor Government will work with the States to implement these twenty-first century models of care to meet the increasingly complex demands that are facing our system. As all members of this House know, the human body is the most complex organism known to us. Looking after people in the twenty-first century is the most complex task that any government can undertake. For that reason models such as after-hours general practice clinics and HealthOne facilities, which bring together general practice and community care, are an incredible improvement on what has been available in the past.
The State Government will be calling on our Federal colleagues to support greater care in the community and allow chronically ill people to remain in their own homes and communities for longer than is the case currently. That approach allows people to be happy and to be more active—which, as all members would know, translates to better health, happiness and lower health costs—and to remain engaged in their community. During the Federal election campaign Mr Rudd and the incredibly clever Opposition Health spokeswoman, Nicola Roxon, who is much smarter than Tony Abbott, made very clear their intention, if elected, to work constructively and cooperatively with State governments, to end the blame game, and to put the focus back on ensuring better health services for all Australians. Kevin Rudd's commitment to a $2 billion national health reform plan is an investment in better health care for the community. Federal Labor policies have been developed to make a real difference. That is the type of new leadership that Australia needs, and the New South Wales State Labor Government welcomes it.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Monaro and the member for Macquarie Fields for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the contribution to the debate made by the member for Hornsby, who always assists in producing a good debate on issues such as health.
The Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd, has announced a plan to provide funding to the States to further reduce elective surgery waiting lists and to provide performance payments for achieving targets. New South Wales welcomes that commitment to increase funding based on the achievement of performance benchmarks in elective surgery and emergency department access. Kevin Rudd also plans to introduce a Commonwealth dental program and to recruit an additional 9,250 nurses to our public hospitals. These two policies will assist in addressing two areas that have been the subject of chronic neglect by John Howard's Government.
The Iemma Government has worked hard to increase its investment in health in the face of dwindling interest by the Howard Government. We are ready, willing and able to meet with the new Prime Minister and the new Federal Minister for Health to discuss Labor's bold new national agenda for health. It is interesting to note the constant injections from members opposite: they do not want to hear about a new era of looking after the health of the people of New South Wales. I take this opportunity to congratulate Kevin Rudd on his election as Prime Minister and to state the commitment of the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Minister for Health to work with the new Federal Minister for Health to improve the delivery of public health services in this country. It has been a long 11 years of neglect of health at a Federal level. New South Wales is 4420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 ready to work with the Rudd Labor Government on its bold new agenda. In the meantime, the Iemma Government has been working to improve services in our hospitals system.
Mrs Judy Hopwood: You are padding it out now.
Ms NOREEN HAY: There is no need to pad out what the Coalition failed to do for such a long period. The New South Wales Government looks forward to working cooperatively with the Commonwealth Government and to participating in the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to reduce duplication of bureaucracy and streamline services between primary care, acute hospital care and community care. I remind the Opposition that the New South Wales Minister for Health, after recent consultation with the task force, announced that an additional 250 beds would be allocated across the State in the following areas: Bankstown Hospital, 10; Canterbury Hospital, 8; Gosford Hospital, 10; Liverpool Hospital, 15; Prince of Wales Hospital, 8; Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, 15; St Vincent's Hospital, 10; Tweed Hospital, 30; Wollongong Hospital, 22; Children's Hospital at Westmead, 4; Campbelltown Hospital, 20; Concord Hospital, 8; John Hunter Hospital, 15; Nepean Hospital, 18; Royal North Shore Hospital, 12; St George Hospital, 15; Sutherland Hospital, 7; Westmead Hospital, 15; and Wyong Hospital, 8.
Opposition members are silent because they do not want to hear this. They could never deliver these outcomes. Allocating hospital beds is an important step in relieving pressure on some of our busiest hospitals. The package announced includes more than $3.6 million for 28 additional emergency physicians to support the busiest emergency departments. We have launched a campaign to support the recruitment of medical staff to areas of shortage, including dedicated local support and targeting emergency staff initially. We have also worked to promote and further clarify the role of nurse practitioners.
The Iemma Labor Government will work with the new Federal Government to deliver better health outcomes for this State, certainly in the funding area. I remind the House of the silence of New South Wales Opposition members when their mates were in government in Canberra. On the first working day in this Chamber since the Federal election those opposite have taken the high moral ground, but people will remember that the Coalition closed hospitals when it was in office. Opposition members whinge about what is happening in our hospitals, but at least we do not close them. I look forward to a new era in Australian government.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
SPORTS FUNDING TO FIGHT OBESITY
Matter of Public Importance
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.21 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance sports funding to fight obesity. This discussion follows on well from the debate on the motion accorded priority about health, which the House passed. Sport and recreation is probably one of the most important areas of primary health care that can be pursued at all levels of government. Before my election to this place I worked at the Australian Sports Commission for seven years and was involved particularly in sports policy. I have always taken a strong interest in sport and recreation. With the increasing cost of acute health care in Australia, it is vital that we do more at a primary health level to ensure that people avoid illnesses and health problems such as obesity and other conditions that are related to a lack of fitness. For example, physical activity and fitness can help the elderly to avoid conditions such as brittle bones and thus avoid hip replacements and so on.
The State Government has introduced an innovative program in my electorate and in the other 11 sport and recreation centres around New South Wales that is designed to target 2,000 people from a diverse range of community groups and introduce physical activity and sport to those who might not otherwise be particularly active. People attended the Jindabyne Sport and Recreation Centre in my electorate. They also gathered at Berry on the South Coast, Borambala near Wagga Wagga, Lake Burrendong near Orange, Lake Ainsworth at Lennox Head on the far North Coast, the Hawkesbury River centres at Broken Bay and Milson Island, the Sydney Academy of Sport and Recreation at Narrabeen, Lake Keepit near Tamworth and Point Wolstoncroft and Myuna Bay on Lake Macquarie. Those sport and recreation centres, which are great assets for the people of New South Wales, took part in the program. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4421
A key target of the State Plan is to increase the number of people from low-income, non-English speaking and indigenous communities who participate in sport and recreation. As I said at the outset, by encouraging a culture of participation in sport and recreation we will help to ensure that people lead fitter and healthier lives and avoid many health costs later in life. I notice that the member for Clarence is in the Chamber. He is a keen fitness fanatic who is committed to his health and to physical activity. I am sure that he will agree with me. The terrific resources at our sport and recreation centres were made available at no cost to people who suffer entrenched disadvantage. They accessed services worth more than $175,000. The groups included people with a disability or mental illness, their primary care givers, children at risk, refugees newly arrived from war- ravaged countries, and others who have suffered isolation or disadvantage as a result of hard times.
More than 170 people participated in activities at Jindabyne. They included refugees from an Arabic background who have been in Australia for less than 12 months, a community group that targeted youth at risk from the western suburbs of Sydney, and a group of female refugees aged between 10 and 20 who have experienced trauma. For some, it was the first time they had had the opportunity to spend time away from the pressures of their daily lives in often challenging city environments. For others, it was an opportunity to take time out from a troubling past and experiences. The groups were referred to New South Wales Sport and Recreation by the agency's regional officers, welfare and community groups, and other agencies including the Department of Community Services and the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. Participants gained valuable experience from the program, and the positive feedback was overwhelming. A youth worker who accompanied young people from the Upper Hunter said:
I saw young people challenging their limits and the perception of their limits … I saw young people confronting their fears and overcoming them. This is important because it gave me the opportunity to talk to these young people about the power and strength that they were able to harness that came from within themselves … It allowed me to then draw the line to other challenges in their lives they have met or will meet and how they now know that they have the ability to meet and overcome fears and obstacles. Sadly for many of our young people these may have been the first victories they have ever had.
Those are very powerful words from someone who deals with young people on a daily basis. The youth worker talked about the transforming nature of outdoor recreation in a beautiful mountain setting—which I have the great pleasure of representing in this place and which I never tire of telling people to visit. People challenged themselves by undertaking a range of activities and seeing what they could achieve in a safe and supportive environment.
I am pleased that New South Wales Sport and Recreation will work with other partner agencies to build on the success of the program and support people who are experiencing high levels of disadvantage by providing access to outdoor education and recreation initiatives in the next 12 months. Residential camps at our sport and recreation centres, whether as part of formal outdoor education programs with a school or as a holiday camp, are leading the way in the fight against obesity, particularly in children. Being active helps kids to stay healthy, which includes maintaining a healthy body weight. As members know, childhood obesity rates are on the rise, and sometimes parents and carers are at a loss to know how to encourage children to exercise. Encouraging kids to attend holiday camps is a great way of creating a lifelong interest in sport and recreation.
Karabar High School recently organised an excursion to the sport and recreation centre on the north shore of Sydney. It is a terrific centre, which I have visited in the past. The kids had a great time and, while enjoying themselves, took part in a range of physical activities that helped them to feel good about themselves and boosted their self-confidence. The camps are a wonderful way for children to learn about the natural environment and themselves. They engender good social skills and improve decision making. As I said, there are 11 sport and recreation centres in New South Wales. I am pleased that the Government has been investing in the Jindabyne centre for some time to make it an even better destination for school groups. I recently had the pleasure of attending with the Minister for Sport and Recreation the opening of new accommodation facilities at the centre that will be used for winter sports. That is obviously a major focus of the centre, which is the headquarters of the Winter Sports Academy in New South Wales. But school groups visit the centre all year round. In recent weeks I spoke to a young person who told me how he was looking forward to attending the centre.
In the past I have had the pleasure of opening other accommodation blocks at the Jindabyne centre, one of which is named after Michael Milton, our wonderful disabled skier who set the world on fire, although I am not sure whether that is possible in the snow. He broke Australian and world disabled records for speed skiing before he was unfortunately laid low by another bout of cancer. I am confident that he will soon be back breaking records and continuing his cycling. I have diverted from the point I was making, which was that the Government has invested a large amount of money in the Jindabyne Sport and Recreation Centre. We do not 4422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 talk enough about sport and recreation in this place, and such centres are a great asset to the people of New South Wales; they are an investment in the long-term health of our population. The Minister for Sport and Recreation has been active in visiting sport and recreation camps. Earlier this year he attended a camp for disadvantaged children who came to the mountains; he found it a very moving experience. The Minister is committed to ensuring that the camps continue, as they have become a way for many young people to test themselves.
The Government is investing in sport at the grassroots, an investment that flows through to development at the elite level. A network of academies has developed across New South Wales, for example, the South East Regional Academy of Sport, of which I was a founding member. Other academies in other electorates link in with the New South Wales Academy of Sport. The Government's programs encourage physical activity, which is great for long-term health and developing elite potential. As a result of the election last weekend the new Federal Government will become part of that program. I have had many discussions with the former shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Health Promotion, Kate Lundy, who understands the need to link different areas of sport.
Mr Thomas George: Is Kevin going to walk every morning?
Mr STEVE WHAN: The Opposition has mentioned John Howard's walk every morning. I compliment John Howard on keeping fit during his time as Prime Minister and I am sure Kevin Rudd will also do that.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [4.31 p.m.]: I will almost choke in saying it, but I commend the member for Monaro for raising this issue. Supporting and funding sport is a great initiative by all governments. We should go back to the basics and encourage families and children to get involved in sport to fight obesity. I will be mundane and boring and read from an article on obesity, which is increasing at a dramatic rate not only in our wider community but especially in Aboriginal communities due to bad education in relation to diet and a lack of interest and support from communities and governments to fund adequate sporting programs.
Overweight and obesity is a serious chronic medical condition. The most common consequences of obesity in childhood and adolescence are those related to body image and self-esteem. Obesity in childhood is also associated with significant physical health effects. These include raised blood pressure, high cholesterol and elevated blood sugars. An increasing number of cases of type 2 diabetes is being diagnosed in Australian adolescents, and an especially high proportion in Aboriginal communities, which relates back to diet, education, funding and support. In the 10 years to 1995 the level of combined overweight and obesity in children more than doubled, whilst the level of obesity tripled in all age groups for both sexes.
The rate of increase in Australia seems to be accelerating sharply. Obese children have a 25 to 50 per cent chance of progressing to adult obesity. It may be as high as 78 per cent in older obese adolescents. Overweight and obesity develops over time. Once it occurs it is difficult to treat. Prevention of weight gains offers the most effective means of controlling obesity. That means we need to start with children and young adults. Weight gain and obesity develop when the energy intake from food and drink exceeds energy expenditure from physical activity and other metabolic processes. The trends in those behaviours are not encouraging. For example, the mean intake of energy increased by more than 10 per cent in Australian children aged 10 to 15 years from 85 to 95. Data from the New South Wales Child Health Survey 2001 found that 40 per cent of children aged 5 to 12 reportedly watch two hours or more of television or videos a day on average, and 15 per cent reported playing computer games for one hour or more on top of that each day.
We can talk about statistics, but governments need to get out into the community. Two years ago in Dubbo while campaigning for a candidate I doorknocked in a low socioeconomic area. The front yards were full of wrappings from Domino's, McDonald's, Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken. We have to encourage that low socioeconomic group to eat in a healthier way. A program to try to get the children to school pays fees for soccer, rugby league or sporting clubs if children attend school for a certain number of days. That program was designed to take them away from a sedentary lifestyle in which they were doing nothing. One does not have to go as far as Dubbo to find that sort of thing.
Before I was told I had to speak on this matter of public importance I jumped in the lift and went up to level 12. As I was coming down a staffer came in from the verandah after a smoke and got in the lift to go to level 11. At level 10 a parliamentary staffer got in and got out at level 9. I cannot believe the lazy attitude of people in general. It often happens in this building that a member of staff goes only one level in the lift. In this 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4423 great complex a good investment has been the gymnasium. From the 93 members of the Legislative Assembly and the 50-odd members of the upper House I could pick out only three who use it on a regular basis. I have not counted the member for Miranda. It is all very well to have the funding but education is needed as well.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Clarence that the gymnasium is heavily patronised and I do not want the Treasurer to think that it is not.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL: We have a great complex and we need to get more people attending, such as the member for Miranda. He speaks a lot in here but we need to be physically, instead of verbally, involved. The Deputy-Speaker should also turn up a little more regularly. To return to funding for sport to reduce obesity, the Confederation of Australian Sport recommended that a whole-of-child approach is needed to tackle the obesity epidemic facing Australia. An immediate independent and collaborative review of obesity in young Australians is urgently required to be undertaken by a joint obesity advisory board consisting of representatives from sport, health, professionals and educators. The review must, as a priority, tackle the heart, mind and body issues associated with obesity among young Australians. The confederation believes a fully integrated approach is the only solution to solving this growing crisis.
All sports-related programs or initiatives identified by the board are to have clear and established links to the existing national sports system and must adopt the confederation's proposed tax benefits for families to encourage children's participation in sport and activity. The real issue for many families in the low socioeconomic areas is that they cannot afford increased sporting fees due to high insurance costs. We need to encourage tax benefits or government funding to ensure that those fees are affordable for struggling families. A long time ago when I was younger, sport at school was compulsory, and the only way to get out of it was to provide a doctor's certificate. The Confederation of Australian Sport recommends that children in kindergarten to year 2 do 30 minutes of physical activity per day and those in year 3 to year 6 do a minimum of 180 minutes per week.
The confederation also recommends that children in years 7 to 12 do a minimum of 180 minutes per week, of which 150 must be active physical education, including sport. All schoolchildren should have the opportunity to participate in after-school programs organised by local sporting clubs that are part of the national sporting network. If the Government invests money to encourage families and children to play sport, it does not mean that they will not have time to spend using their computers. Computers are not the answer but they can encourage kids to play sport.
A few years ago a friend of mine encouraged his daughter, who is a big girl, to play sport. The one sport she was good at was the shot-put because of her size. It gave her a lot of self-esteem. She competed at the shot-put and played a bit of netball. When she got through puberty her confidence stayed with her. She is a successful young person in the community because she gained confidence and self-esteem through sport. It is okay to consider the health benefits of sport but self-esteem is a big thing with kids, whether one has red hair and freckles and gets called "baked beans" or one is short and dumpy and gets called "fatty". Names hurt and kids can be cruel. If we can help those kids get involved in sport, keep their weight down and their self-esteem up, I think we can go a long way towards solving the problem. I commend the member for Monaro for raising this matter of public importance.
Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [4.41 p.m.]: The Iemma Government is doing excellent work in fighting childhood obesity through the provision of sports infrastructure that benefits communities across New South Wales. In particular, I refer to the 11 sport and recreation centres across New South Wales that will provide the families of New South Wales with accessible, affordable sporting experiences this summer. As a mother of three boys and with Christmas quickly approaching, I understand the importance of finding activities and events to keep them busy and engaged. And what better way to do that than using the excellent facilities at these sport and recreation centres! We are already aware of the increasing problem of obesity. Our sport and recreation centres provide the ideal environment for fighting obesity by keeping children active and entertained, by offering them fresh, healthy food and by encouraging them to enjoy sports, and outdoor activities and experiences.
Residential camps at our centres provide holiday experiences and new friendships for children, especially those without brothers or sisters. Camps are a great solution for parents and carers who cannot take leave during the summer holidays. Attendance at sport and recreation centres provides memorable experiences—times that kids will remember for the rest of their lives. When I was a school student I attended camps at both Lake Keepit and Point Wolstencroft. I still remember those times and I can still sing many of the 4424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 camp songs: I sing them to my children. My two older sons have attended sport and recreation camps at Berry on a couple of occasions and they have totally enjoyed the experience. A residential camp is a great idea for an active Christmas gift for children, rather than an expensive toy or game that will keep them passive in front of a small screen. At our residential camps children are offered a fantastic range of activities, including abseiling, kayaking, surf skiing, archery and even juggling, silk screening and mosaics.
Our centres also offer camps for children who are interested in one particular sport, for example, the junior golf camp at Jindabyne, where children can brush up on their golf skills under the watchful eye of a golf professional. They can play the nine-hole course outside the camp's front door, and at the end of the week they can go to the highest golf course in Australia, the Thredbo golf course. In January Borambola will host the annual girl's cricket camp—the only one in the State—for girls of all abilities. Girls who have never played cricket or those who want to gain more experience love these camps, which are assisted by some of Australia's top women cricketers. The camp is building skills in self-esteem, as well as building our future world-class women cricketers. When parents and carers can set aside holiday time, the sport and recreation centres offer opportunities for families to be active together in a fresh and different environment. At the centres families can enjoy comfortable accommodation and imaginative activities that promote fitness, teamwork and memorable experiences that build their sense of togetherness and family identity.
Some fantastic family holidays are being offered this summer. For example, a family camp at Milson Island will be held over the Australia Day weekend. This offers families an opportunity to engage in rock climbing and kayaking. During New Year at the Sydney Academy at Narrabeen families can participate in canoeing, archery and abseiling, or they can just enjoy quiet time together bushwalking or picnicking. What is most important is that at our centres families and children experience these new and exciting outdoor and sporting challenges in a secure, supportive environment that ensures that they develop important skills and grow in confidence—a big plus for the future. It is important to note that all the staff at the centres are qualified as outdoor leaders and have been checked thoroughly for their suitability in working with children. They are also trained in first aid. Our centres show the Government's commitment to bringing communities closer together and ensuring that our programs contribute positively to people's lives. Just because the member for Clarence does not see members of this House exercising does not mean that it is not happening. Occasionally I enjoy a few rounds with a boxing bag.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.46 p.m.], in reply: I welcome the contributions of the member for Shellharbour and the member for Clarence. Childhood obesity deserves more discussion and more attention from all levels of government in the years to come. As I said in my opening remarks, obesity and encouraging physical activity go to the heart of primary health care. It is all about whether we can in the long term restrict the ever-rising cost of acute health care and fix people's problems by helping them to avoid the health problems that are costing so much and causing so much pain and anguish. Obviously, the best thing from everybody's point of view is to avoid the problems if at all possible.
The member for Shellharbour related her experience as a parent, and spoke about the importance of sport and recreation camps, which are terrific. I noted her reference to the highest golf course in Australia at Thredbo. I am a fairly bad slicer and I have lost a lot of balls on that golf course, so I know all about it. I welcome the contribution from the member for Clarence, who spoke about the obesity rates in young people and in Aboriginal communities in particular. He referred to his experience of low-income areas needing better promotion and better assistance with education about nutrition and avoiding too much reliance on fast foods. The State Government has comprehensive nutrition plans, from the importance of breastfeeding as something that helps to avoid health problems in the long term through to nutrition in later age groups. The key is knowing how to get the message out there and how to educate people.
As everyone who has kids in high school knows, health and nutrition are taught in high schools. We simply need to ensure that parents provide an example and continue the lessons. The member for Clarence mentioned people travelling only one level in a lift. That point is valid. However, I defend the member for Miranda, who frequently uses the squash court in Parliament House. The member for Clarence referred to sporting fees. Over the years I have been concerned that increasingly, after the economic rationalism of the 1980s, people who build sports facilities must achieve commercial returns on those facilities.
As a water polo player for the past 24 years I have experience of paying sporting fees: an entry fee to get into the pool, a lane hire fee to get into the water, a registration fee and insurance, all of which make it a very expensive sport. I know the same thing applies to people who play basketball and many other sports that are played at indoor sports centres. The price of sport prevents some low-income families from becoming involved 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4425 in sport, and that is something that should be of concern to all governments at all levels. However, as that aspect of being involved in sport has not received a lot of attention, I appreciate the member for Clarence raising it.
As I said earlier, those ambitions are a key part of the State Plan, and increasing the number of people from low-income, non-English speaking backgrounds and indigenous communities participating in sport and recreation is one of its objectives. It is something the Government takes very seriously. We should promote a range of sporting activities from participating in teams and structured training right through to participating in the increasingly popular unstructured activities, such as skateboard riding at skate parks, bike riding, or just turning up at an activity. Some time ago I worked in what some people call fast-food sport, that is, someone just turns up and participates in a game and then disappears without being obliged to do anything in return, and generally pays for that option.
The promotion of skate parks and other activities under the Government's capital assistance programs are very important, as are the activities offered at sport and recreation centres to which the member for Shellharbour referred. At the recent Rural and Regional Taskforce hearing in Grafton I was pleased to hear the appreciation of those who attended for the fact that primary health care was one of the most important issues. They did not spend a long time talking about the local hospital: they wanted to talk about keeping people out of hospital. Sport and recreation is an important part of achieving that, but, unfortunately, we did not have time to undertake an in-depth discussion.
As I said earlier, I look forward to a Rudd Labor Government because it will understand the importance of primary health care, which is something that has diminished over the years. John Howard, to his credit, did quite a bit for elite sport and facilities at the Australian Sports Commission, but he did not do a lot to promote Aussie Sport and primary health care.
Discussion concluded.
POLICE AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (CLAIMS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION) BILL 2007
Bill introduced on motion by Ms Virginia Judge, on behalf of Mr John Watkins.
Agreement in Principle
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.53 p.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The Government is pleased to introduce the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Bill 2007. The purpose of the bill is to make further efficiency improvements in the motor accidents claims and dispute resolution processes and procedures currently operating under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. These reforms build on the Government's 1999 overhaul of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme and continue the Government's commitment to providing people injured in motor vehicle accidents with faster and less formal methods for resolving motor accident compensation claims and disputes outside of the court system.
The Government recognises the importance of providing injured people with access to compensation as soon as possible. A key reform to the claims process introduced in 1999 was the introduction of an early accident notification process designed to encourage injured people to access early treatment with the goal of maximising recovery from their accident injuries. An accident notification lodged within 28 days of the accident provides early injury notification to the insurer and enables the injured person to access up to $500 in medical treatment, and pharmaceutical and rehabilitation expenses. The bill expands the early notification and payment process to provide claimants with more minor injuries the option of a simplified process for the recovery of up to $5,000 in treatment expenses and lost earnings. This initiative will provide a fast-track process for more efficiently resolving small claims. 4426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
The bill also introduces processes to promote the earlier resolution of motor accident injury claims in disputed cases by requiring claimants and green slip insurers to cooperate with each other in exchanging information about claims and to participate in settlement conferences before claims can be referred for dispute resolution. In cases where settlement is unable to be achieved through these new processes, these negotiations will assist the parties to narrow the issues in dispute prior to referring the matter for dispute resolution.
The bill also streamlines processes relating to the operation of the Motor Accidents Authority's Motor Accidents Assessment Service, which comprises the Medical Assessment Service and the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service. The Medical Assessment Service and the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service were established as part of the Government's 1999 reforms to the Motor Accidents Scheme to facilitate the resolution of motor accident claims without the need to resort to litigation. The Medical Assessment Service provides an independent forum for assessing disputes between insurers and injured people concerning an injured person's medical treatment and impairment. Assessment is by way of referral to expert medical specialists and other healthcare professionals.
The Claims Assessment and Resolution Service resolves claims outside the court system and deals with all disputed motor accident claims as a precondition to commencing court proceedings. These changes flow from close examination and review of the motor accidents claims process and the dispute resolution services against a background of more than seven years experience with the operation of the reformed scheme. The Motor Accidents Authority has also engaged in extensive consultation with representatives from the insurance industry, legal profession, medical assessors and claims assessors to identify strategies to improve the operation of the Motor Accidents Assessment Service. This consultation has identified a number of procedural and process changes to promote greater scheme efficiency as well as facilitate earlier resolution of motor accident claims.
I now turn to the main provisions of the bill. The bill makes amendments to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to promote the earlier resolution of motor accident injury claims. The bill also makes several miscellaneous amendments to the Act to improve the operation of the Motor Accidents Scheme. Items [6] to [17] of schedule 1 to the bill amend part 3.2 of the Act dealing with early accident notification and payments. The amendments will simplify the claim process for motor accident victims with more minor injuries. The bill extends the early payment provisions to include payment for lost earnings in addition to treatment expenses. The maximum limit on early payments is increased from $500 to $5,000.
To support this expansion, the bill also repeals section 124 of the Act, which excludes recovery of the first five days economic loss. Economic loss will now be recoverable from the first day of lost earnings. This expansion will operate within the framework currently applying for the early accident notification process. If, within the early accident notification period, the injured person lodges a full claim, the claim will take precedence. Items [18] to [36] of schedule 1 to the bill amend part 3.4 of the Act dealing with medical assessments. The bill clarifies a number of procedural issues relating to medical assessments including the processes for referral of disputes for medical assessment and further assessment, the correction of obvious errors in assessment certificates and the conduct of review assessments, and provides for the issuing of combination certificates in cases of multiple injuries that require assessment by more than one medical assessor to determine the extent of a person's permanent impairment.
The bill also refines the dispute jurisdiction of the Medical Assessment Service to focus on its core functions of dealing with disputes about treatment for motor accident injuries and assessment of permanent impairment. The Medical Assessment Service will discontinue dealing with matters about impairment of earning capacity and injury stabilisation, other than considering whether an injury has stabilised to enable an assessment of the extent of permanent impairment to be determined.
The bill also provides statutory recognition of the medical assessment service and makes it absolutely clear that medical assessors are not subject to the control or direction of the Motor Accidents Authority in the exercise of their assessment functions. The bill also enables the medical assessment service to recoup the administrative costs associated with medical assessments. This may include, for example, costs associated with the processing of applications involving non-New South Wales insurers. To overcome unnecessary disputation, the bill provides for the regulation of reimbursement rates for claimants' travel expenses.
Items [37] to [77] of schedule 1 to the bill amend chapter 4 of the Act relating to motor accident claims. Items [37] to [42] of schedule 1 are largely clarifying amendments of existing provisions dealing with disputes about preliminary claims matters, such as reporting the accident to police, late claims and notice of claim. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4427
Amendments proposed by items [43] to [55] of schedule 1 clarify the duties of the parties in relation to the claim. Item [47] of schedule 1 provides for the authority's medical guidelines to approve what constitutes reasonable treatment, rehabilitation and attendant care for the purposes of an insurer's obligation to pay for an injured person's reasonable and necessary treatment, rehabilitation and care expenses.
Item [50] of schedule 1 to the bill imposes a new obligation on insurers in matters where liability has been admitted to make advance payments of economic loss entitlements in cases of economic hardship. Item [51] of schedule 1 clarifies a claimant's duty to provide all relevant particulars about a claim as expeditiously as possible and introduces a procedure to deal with inactive claims. This new procedure enables an insurer to issue an approved notice requiring the claimant to provide relevant particulars about the claim after two years and six months from the date of the accident. If the claimant does not comply with the notice, the claimant is taken to have withdrawn the claim. A claimant will, however, have a right to apply for reinstatement of a claim subject to a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Item [57] of schedule 1 to the bill places new obligations on the parties to a claim to exchange documentation about the claim, participate in a settlement conference and exchange offers of settlement before the claim can be referred to the claims assessment and resolution service for assessment of the claim. The bill also provides that only those documents that have been exchanged by the parties may be included in a claims assessment. If one party refuses to cooperate and fails to exchange documents or participate in the settlement conference, a claims assessor may, in assessing costs, impose a costs penalty of up to 25 per cent on that party.
The bill also provides for the regulations to prescribe time frames in which an insurer is to pay compensation entitlements assessed by a claims assessor once the claimant has accepted the assessment. The bill expands the interim or special dispute jurisdiction of the claims assessment and resolution service to assist the continued progress of claims. Claims assessors may now also consider procedural disputes about interim payments of economic loss in cases of financial hardship; whether due inquiry and search about the identity of a vehicle has been made where a claim is made against the nominal defendant arising from an accident involving an unidentified vehicle; whether an insurer is entitled to require the claimant to provide relevant particulars about a claim; and the reinstatement of a claim taken to have been withdrawn.
The bill extends the powers of claims assessors to require information about a claim. Currently a claims assessor can direct a claimant or insurer to provide information and documents that the assessor considers relevant to the claim. The bill enables a claims assessor to direct a third party to produce specified information or documents that are considered relevant to a claim. The bill also provides for the position of a principal claims assessor as a statutory office with remuneration determined by the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal.
Finally, the bill makes several miscellaneous reforms to the Motor Accidents Scheme. The bill makes clear that "as incurred" payments made by insurers are subject to apportionment when there is a finding of contributory negligence that requires a proportionate reduction in the damages awarded. The bill clarifies that the provisions in the Act for damages for personal injury arising from motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales are part of the substantive law of the State. This amendment is necessary to protect the Motor Accidents Scheme from the impact of overseas awards of damages in excess of the compensation entitlements provided in the New South Wales scheme.
The bill also provides that an insurer is not required to pay damages to the extent those damages exceed entitlements provided by the Act, and has a right to recover any excess if an award exceeds entitlements provided by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. The New South Wales scheme is fully funded from green slip premiums. If insurers are exposed to liability for awards in other jurisdictions, which exceed entitlements provided by the New South Wales scheme, this will impact on green slip premiums for the motorists of this State. The bill also provides that for the purposes of the Motor Accidents Scheme the standard of care required of the driver of a motor vehicle is not affected by the driver's skill or experience.
This amendment responds to the decision of the High Court in the case of Cook v Cook in which the court determined that the standard of care expected of an inexperienced driver, such as a learner driver, is different from the standard of care ordinarily expected of a driver in relation to their passengers. The High Court reasoned that a supervising passenger, for example, is aware that a learner driver is less skilled and experienced. It is not desirable that the costs of injury to an instructor or supervisor from an accident caused by the actions of a learner driver could be borne primarily by the injured person—a parent, for example—depending on the view 4428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 of a court as to the standard of care required of the particular learner driver. This amendment will ensure that such injuries are covered by the green slip scheme.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the reforms proposed in the bill make further improvements to the claims and dispute resolution processes operating under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. The changes will promote speedier resolution of motor accident matters, which will result in injured people finalising their claims and receiving compensation payments earlier. The changes will also create greater certainty in the underwriting of claims by insurers and therefore promote stability in green slip premiums for motorists. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Russell Turner and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! It being shortly before 5.15 p.m., with the concurrence of the House I propose to proceed to the taking of private members' statements.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______
LIVERPOOL LIONS CLUB FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [5.09 p.m.]: On 24 November I was fortunate to be able to attend the fiftieth anniversary of the Liverpool Lions Club, and I did so proudly as a member of the Parliamentary Lions Club and as a guest of Bob Grimson, President of the Liverpool Lions Club. The proceeds of the night went to the Liverpool Girl Guides hall renovation fund. Lions are members of the largest service organisation in the world and they promote goodwill and friendliness. I was most fortunate to meet Lions member Roy Scott, who received his 50-year 100 per cent attendance award on the night. For more than 40 years Roy has been the only remaining charter member of the Liverpool Lions Club and he has spent his whole life in community service, including many years on the Liverpool Hospital board. I also dined with Roy's charming and kind wife, Lions member Lorna Scott, to whom Roy has been married for 62 years—the great woman behind the man.
Roy has too many achievements to mention in this short speech. In 1994 Roy was Liverpool Citizen of Year. In 1996 he received an Order of Australia Medal for services to Liverpool Hospital and in the same year he received a Premier's Award. In May 2003 he received the Centennial of Federation Award, signed by the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. He was a true leader of our people and is now living in well-deserved retirement on the North Coast after a life of hard work and service. Lions clubs in my area continue to do many great things. For example, they funded the recent launch and distribution of 80,000 copies of an excellent patient information book on diabetes management, which was written by Professor Stephen Lillioja. I strongly recommend that book to all members. I can arrange for them to view it if they wish.
An excellent series of patient information sheets relating to eye disease is also available through Lions clubs. The $1 million redevelopment of Lighthorse Park, which opened in 1988, was a Lions club initiative. The visit of Santa Claus on Christmas morning to the children's ward at Liverpool Hospital and the supply of Christmas cakes to Meals on Wheels are some of the club's other current achievements. The Liverpool Lions Club also supported the formation of Campbelltown, Green Valley and Cabramatta Lions clubs. On the night I was honoured by being asked to propose a toast. The Liverpool community has looked after my family in the past and it was a wonderful honour to be asked to propose a toast and to acknowledge the debt that I owe to that community.
Macquarie Fields electorate was an area of opportunity for my family then and it is an area of opportunity now for the many young families I was fortunate to meet on election day on 24 November. Lions clubs contribute much towards generating opportunities for our constituents. Lions member Brian Rope from my electorate was awarded life membership, which was well deserved, as he continues to advocate tirelessly for the benefit of our community. His input is always well thought out, forthright, welcome and helpful. A sad touch on the night was the passing in the previous week of Lions past President, Pat Kennedy, who had been a Lions member for the past 45 years. My condolences go to his wife, Nancy, and to his sons Barry and Glen. Celebrations on the night were a great success. The Liverpool singers were excellent, as usual. Lions club members from many areas of the State joined their Liverpool colleagues on this night of celebration. I commend to the House the wonderful work of the Liverpool Lions Club over the past 50 years and I wish it well for the next 50 years.
[Business interrupted.] 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4429
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
[Business resumed.]
MANLY VALE PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [5.15 p.m.]: Today I refer to education and, in particular, to Manly Vale Public School. As the father of three young children I have developed a real interest in education over the past few years. My first priority as the member for Manly was to visit every school in the electorate. Throughout that process I was overwhelmed by the immense need for, and the lack of, basic facilities in many of our local schools. I was impressed by the quality of the teachers, the principals and the school communities but I was alarmed by the lack of services in those schools. In my view Manly Vale Public School has the greatest need for the delivery of services. Some schools have projects of significant merit but Manly Vale Public School has a whole-of-school requirement for services.
Many Vale Public School has been campaigning for funds for more than 15 years. It is not looking for an improvement to its facilities; it is looking simply for the provision of facilities to meet basic standards. The school's library and technology room, which is small, cramped and dark, falls well below the minimum standards set by the Department of Education and Training. The playground has been built on such a slope that children playing handball are almost forced to take hold to maintain their balance. Classrooms are more than 50 years old and the demountable administration block, which was constructed 17 years ago, has no ventilation or air conditioning. The sick bay, which is just a storage room, contains two chairs that might be found at the edge of a swimming pool. Those lounging chairs, which are piled between boxes, are used as beds for sick children, which is unacceptable.
Those statements are not an exaggeration but plain statements of fact. Using any criterion, conditions at that school are no longer acceptable. This Friday the school will submit its application for a grant through the Iemma Government's major capital works program. With my private sector background I am accustomed to prioritising funding, but for the life of me I cannot understand how this Government prioritises its public funds. I am doing my bit in the Manly electorate to make it easy for the Department of Education and Training. Put simply, Many Vale Public School is a school with the greatest need. When the Government prioritises its public funds it should take into account, first, the needs of Manly Vale Public School and, second, the needs of many other public schools.
Manly Vale Public School has been on the Government's priority list for more than two years but over the past 14 to 17 years it has received no funding for many projects. Over the past five years my predecessor fought to no avail to obtain funding for this school. Schools across this State are facing a systemic problem. The Auditor-General's financial audit, which was released this month, established that the money spent on New South Wales schools is below the national average and that schools in New South Wales receive the second lowest funding allocation. No matter what parameters are established at a national level New South Wales always appears to be at the bottom. When this Government prioritises its public funds schools deserve to be put at the top of the list.
Manly Vale Public School, which is located near Manly Dam in one of the most beautiful parts of the world, is united in its vision for environmental excellence and it has been recognised for its commitment to the environment. Environmental excellence should form part of the curriculum for schools across New South Wales so that students understand and experience first hand the impact of things such as climate change. This is an opportunity for Manly Vale Public School to embrace such a vision. The school is united. Students have highlighted many conditions to the Minister for Education and Training. Just before I entered this Chamber I delivered to the Minister my plea for funding in his review of capital grants. One parent, Shevaun Bruun, has written to me, the shadow Minister, and the Minister for Education and Training. She said:
The conditions in the sick bay are appalling. There is no air conditioning, the only accessible toilets and washbasin are the school staff toilets, there is no visibility by the administration staff and due to the lack of school storage space this area is used as a storage area. 4430 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
The State Coalition is committed to investment in our schools. One of the first policy announcements by the Leader of the Opposition was that the Coalition would support the sale of the retail aspect of the electricity industry and invest those funds in public school infrastructure. That is the sort of commitment we are looking for. The Iemma Government should have adopted the idea of the Leader of the Opposition. Manly Vale school is growing, and until the Government delivers these funds the school will suffer. I call on the Minister for Education and Training to listen to this plea.
2007 SCHOOLS SPECTACULAR
Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.20 p.m.]: I speak tonight about the 2007 Schools Spectacular. Many schools from most of the State's electorates participated in the Schools Spectacular again this year. Many members present in the Chamber tonight attended the show on Friday and Saturday night. I have a few words to say about a good friend of mine, Mary Lopez. She is the director of the Schools Spectacular and this year she received the prestigious 2007 Variety Humanitarian of the Year, Heart Award, for helping thousands of children experience the magic of show business while learning discipline, hard work and attention to detail. The name Mary Lopez is synonymous with the Schools Spectacular. In 1984 she directed the very first Schools Spectacular and, of course, 24 years later Mary is still there. Mary's love for, and knowledge of, our country, its people and its landscape have educated thousands of children and audiences about what it means to be Australian.
This year the producer again was Dianne Duff. In November 1985 Dianne was a young teacher at Kareela Public School who took her choir to the Sydney Entertainment Centre to perform as part of the massed choir for the second Schools Spectacular. This year is her fourth time as producer and the twenty-third time she has attended the Schools Spectacular. Another great person behind the Schools Spectacular is John Foreman, who was the youngest music director on Good Morning Australia and the Bert Newton Show at 19 years of age. He learnt piano at seven years of age and by age 16 he was playing at the Sydney Conservatorium. He has supported many great artists—Guy Sebastian, Shannon Noll, Marcia Hines, Shirley Bassey and many more. This year was John Foreman's seventh year as host, which says a lot for the Schools Spectacular.
Australian Idol, which many people would have watched recently, runs a very close second to the Schools Spectacular, which boasts extraordinary talent. The theme of this year's spectacular was "My Spec", the story of love and passion. Lauren Azar from Newtown High School of the Performing Arts and a group of singers performed Thunderstruck, Lacrimosa, Boogie Wonderland, Reflection and Run To Paradise. Their performances were something to behold. Angel Tupai from Campbelltown Performing Arts High School sang Listen. Everybody in the audience did listen because she was unbelievable. Melissa Nadin from Kirrawee High School and Joel Newman from Menai High School sang a duet, and Chris Sheehy and Sam Morgan Grahame sang I Could Have Danced All Night. Everybody in the audience probably could have danced all night as well. Richard Blomfield from Bega High School—a great talent and a fellow who will go places—sang Mahna Mahna. Lincoln Hall from Smith's Hill High School sang When You Wish Upon a Star and later in the night he performed his rendition of Corner of the Sky.
I do not have time to mention all of the extraordinary talent, but the variety of entertainment included musicians such as Shane McGrath from Deniliquin High School, who played his guitar so well one would think he was Elvis at his peak. There were dancers also, and whether it was ballet, pop or rock and roll, it was all covered. The stage crew also was unbelievable and there were bands such as Cantina Band. The High School Deaf Choir from Nepean High School was full of talent that had to be seen. The highlight of the night for me was Lauren Azar from Newtown High School and Robert McDougall from the Talent Development Project at Oxley High School singing their version of All I Ask of You from Phantom of the Opera. I was fortunate enough to see Phantom at the West End and a couple of times in Sydney and Melbourne. These two young people sang this song as well as I have heard it at sung any of those shows.
The performers ranged from small children to teenagers and you could tell by the looks on their faces how proud they were to be a part of the Schools Spectacular. You could tell also from the faces of people in the audience how much they enjoyed the show. I said afterwards that if this show were in Las Vegas or in the West End people still would be talking about it as one of the greatest shows one could ever wish to see. We have to remember that these 1,400 to 1,500 schoolchildren from all over New South Wales rehearsed only twice! People who worry about the education standard in New South Wales have only to attend the Schools Spectacular to see that in this State education is in very good hands. We have the best teachers not only in our State or country school systems but in the world. This show is a great compliment to the teachers and parents. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4431
DARYL TIGHE ABORIGINAL ART CURATOR
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [5.25 p.m.]: I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Blacktown about the Schools Spectacular. I was looking forward to his breaking into song at any moment! Last Friday in my hometown of Moree, in conjunction with Lou Swan, one of our senior Aboriginal elders, I had the privilege of opening a new commercial facility to be operated by Daryl Tighe, a young Aboriginal art curator who was one of the first to complete the full training program. Daryl is a young Gamilaroi man and was born and raised in Moree. The business he opened last week is called Yaama Maliyaa—yaama meaning "welcome" and maliyaa meaning "friends". It was a great evening with a wonderful gathering of family, friends and supporters interested in reconciliation not only in my community but also in the broader community.
Daryl Tighe and his family have lived in Moree for a very long time. The family has been well established and has a long tradition of engaging and working in the community as well as a strong history in the railway and shearing industries. They live in an area in Moree called the Rowe, named after the old Rowe soap factory. Daryl was schooled in the local area and trained as an artist and curator at the Moree Plains Shire Gallery under the tutelage of Annabelle Simpson. His achievements are an extremely good promotion of our community. The Moree Plains Gallery was a bicentennial project and is a keeping place in our community where everyone can meet to exchange ideas and share cultures. After completing his training and undertaking a little bit of travelling Daryl had a burning ambition to start his own business in the art world. Recently, in the last month or two, Daryl put together a very significant compilation of local artists and visiting artists. Indeed, he set up what will be one of the more successful businesses in my area.
The important aspect of this project is that this young lad has done this off his own bat purely through his own talent and skill with the support of his family and friends and without any government assistance. Much of the art has been accumulated from artists who have been trained in the Indigenous Arts Program through the local TAFE and from previous local artists based in centres such as the Yurandali Cooperative. The works are on display and are commercially for sale in the gallery, which is located at a major cross point in the middle of town and can be accessed by all tourists and locals.
Artists include Anne Johnson, Janelle Boyd, David Craigie, Godfrey Swan, Gregory French, Garry Payne, Margaret Adams, George See, Alan Duncan from Boggabilla, Yvonne Rice, Katrina Gibson, Gordon Smith, Colleen Maloney, Nancy Hunt, Danella Smith, Chris Roberts, David Swan, Warren Fernando, Theresa Duncan, Carmine Munro, the Moree Aboriginal TAFE Sewers, Pauline Briggs, Neil Edwards, Eddy Morgan, Vern Smith, James Porter, the Meehi Murri Group that is also a tourist venture, the Disabilities Work Shop Group, Lyn Lee, Margaret Adams, who is involved also at the Quandong Jewellery, the Moree Elders Group, the Lightning Ridge ladies, Erie the bug man from Lightning Ridge, Barry Walford, Greg Wetherby, Christine Brown, Janice Giffin and Dean Boney. Janice Giffin deserves credit because she provided a great deal of volunteer support and assistance to Daryl Tighe.
This is a very important venture because it is a commercial point of exchange. It is also an important transition point for young Aboriginal people and provides them with strong role models. It is a powerful story. The establishment of another indigenous business in our main centre provides a great example for others, not just in Moree but also in the wider community. I acknowledge Lou Swan and the Tighe family and thank them for a very entertaining evening. I am certainly very proud to be a member of the Moree community as well as a part of what is being achieved. I am also pleased that young people such as Daryl are rekindling and nurturing the spirit of reconciliation by bringing people together through the arts.
O'CONNELL REMEMBRANCE DAY SERVICE
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.30 p.m.]: The village of O'Connell is situated midway between Bathurst and Oberon. Like many country communities, the people of O'Connell made a significant contribution to the Australian war effort in World War I. Thirty-six residents of O'Connell enlisted and 10 made the supreme sacrifice. Today I relate to the House the story of Edgar Gornall, a signaller from the area who has the distinction of being the last Australian out of Gallipoli.
I became aware of this fascinating story when I attended a Remembrance Day ceremony in 2001. The service was conducted in an open paddock that is adjacent to an avenue of desert ash trees that were planted by the O'Connell community in 1926 as a memorial to the Australian efforts in World War I. The program produced for the Remembrance Day service by the O'Connell Village preservation group included a copy of a 4432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 letter that Edgar Gornall sent to the Western Times newspaper in Bathurst. It was published on 26 February 1916, and it makes fascinating reading:
As the time of the evacuation drew nigh, the garrison was nightly reduced and at 3 a.m. on December 20th, Captain moved his party out, leaving two officers and twenty-one men, including myself, in the Australian firing trenches which cover a front of about 6 miles … The duty of most of his remaining men was to keep up a fairly rapid rifle fire almost equal to that of the whole battalion, and to watch for any unusual movement on the part of the Turks. Holding the position nearest to the point of embarkation and the beach, our battalion was to be the last to leave the trenches, and by this time, 3 a.m., all the other Australian troops had left their trenches, having left old rifles and bombs, still being fired by the time fuses.
The firing of these gave the Turks the impression that we still occupied the trenches, and my mate and I passed knowing winks as we heard the noises of the distant bombs, and the firing of the Turkish snipers at empty loop holes. We smiled as the Turks continued to fire into the empty trenches on our either hand, from Chatham's Post to Popes and from Rhododendron to Suvla.
At five minutes past three, I was sitting in the little telephone station hidden away in the almost deserted firing trenches, when the receiver strapped over my ear buzzed out certain letters in Morse, and the order came through for the twenty three remaining men to vacate the trenches, proceed to the beach and embark.
The officer in charge quickly gathered up the last men from the different posts and wired through "O.K." The long fuses attached to the rifles and bombs were then lighted, and the officer hurried off with the last party, having given my mate and self orders to cut wires, grab our phones, and run for it. It was now 3.20 a.m., and we were the only men on the post. It would have been "God help us" if the Turks had "jerried to our game" and hopped over our parapets. Happily, and much to everyone's surprise, they didn't, but continued to throw bombs into our deserted trenches and snipe at the vacant loop holes.
As the last party was by this time out of the trenches and on its way back to the beach, we lost no time in carrying out the first two orders, but our packs were too heavy for us to run, and so we fixed bayonets, loaded up, and retreated at a walk. My mate, who was a burly farmer, tried to run but sprained his ankle. Then we found that the last party had forgotten us, and had barricaded up the exit trench with barbed wire and entanglements.
We were left alone in the trenches, weighted down with heavy packs and official gear, one of us crippled, neither able to scale the barrier, and with thousands of suspicious Turks less than a hundred yards … away. These very trenches were to be blown sky high in a minute or two. Was there no escape for us? Imagine our dilemma.
Remembering that real soldiers don't do their blocks, we hunted around and found another gap, which thank God, was open. Hardly had we entered it when up went two of our big mines that were laid under our trenches and also those of the Turks. The ground jumped from under us. There was a roar like a broadside, a towering flame that lit up the whole landscape, and fragments of timber and earthworks fell all about us. Then all was silence, and we still floundered on.
We were just on the outskirts of the trenches when the third mine blew. The Turks soon regained their breath however, and demonstrated. The reports of our rifles and bombs were now drowned in the inferno of noise. Every Turk must have fired round after round of his rifle as fast as he could, and the din was awful. The air was thick with bullets which fell like rain into the sea beyond.
The rattling bursts of the enemy machine guns were almost incessant. We overtook the last party as they were stepping on the last remaining motor barge, and here it occurred to us that the last man to leave the Australian firing trenches was a Bathurstian. He was myself.
That fascinating story by Edgar Gornall demonstrates that the most wonderful recollections of Gallipoli do not always include that the most famous part of Gallipoli, and the only part that was a great success for Australia from a militaristic point of view, was the successful evacuation. Every Australian trooper who was part of the evacuation escaped uninjured.
RICHMOND-UPPER CLARENCE REGIONAL LIBRARY
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.35 p.m.]: In recognising the vital contribution to community life made by public libraries I offer thanks to the shadow Minister for Arts, Jillian Skinner, and the member for Upper Hunter, George Souris, for their representations and the work they have been doing with local libraries. I call on the Government to increase funding for public libraries to protect their future. Public library funding has now reached crisis point in New South Wales. State Government funding for public libraries has been reduced during the past 25 years. In 1980 the State Government contributed 23.6 per cent of the total operating costs of public libraries, but in 2004-05 this contribution dwindled to 7.8 per cent and, after a massive cut in 2006-07, to 4.16 per cent.
New South Wales has the lowest State Government per capita contribution to public libraries of all States and Territories in Australia. That is a matter of grave concern to me. A forecast by the Richmond-Tweed regional library's director, Martin Field, points out that Northern Rivers readers are living in a public library Third World with the prospect of worse to come in the form of reduced opening hours, no new books and membership fees. Mr Field said: 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4433
No other state in the country provides less than 19 per cent, so to provide less than eight per cent is more than an aberration, it's an absolute disgrace …
NSW has 400 public libraries which last year received 31 million visits.
According to State Government legislation, library membership must be free, but with a $20 million shortfall in public library funding across NSW … it was coming to the point where some councils may feel they're better off running libraries without State help.
Some councils are getting close to the point of telling the state government that if they're only providing 7.8 per cent of the costs, they have no right to make the rules.
This is a matter of deep concern for local government as it struggles to maintain effective public library services against a backdrop of ongoing proportional reduction in State funding. Mr Field has also pointed out that libraries have a reciprocal arrangement across borders and the reduction in funding is a matter of major concern. Public libraries within the Northern Rivers region are so underfunded that it is embarrassing and detrimental.
The Richmond-Upper Clarence Regional Library's manager, Gary Ellem, sought my support in bringing this critical matter to the attention of the New South Wales State Government. I would appreciate the Government taking notice of this serious problem. Every member of this House would agree that public libraries play a very important role in regions. I urge the Government to examine the crisis that regional libraries are facing. I also urge the Government to reconsider its level of support for public libraries. Public libraries provide the only access to information that many people in regional areas have. Richmond-Tweed library has a reciprocal arrangement with the Gold Coast City Council. However, as New South Wales funding has dropped, more and more Richmond-Tweed members are accessing library facilities across the border. Their number is so great that from October New South Wales residents will have to pay an annual fee to use Gold Coast libraries, which have up to 40 computers compared with five or six in the Richmond-Tweed area. That is a problem.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Women, and Minister for Science and Medical Research in the Chamber. I thank her for visiting Lismore. I will give her my business card so that she can contact me next time she comes to my area. I assure her that I will make myself available when she next comes to the Lismore electorate. I recently wrote to the Minister for Education and Training and the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport to make representations on behalf of my constituents. Both Ministers replied directly to the constituents concerned and sent me copies of the letters. I do not know where this State Government is heading, but that reveals its arrogance. When members make representations Ministers should reply to the member, not the constituent.
DEATH OF BERNIE BANTON, AM
Ms VERITY FIRTH (Balmain—Minister for Women, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (Environment)) [5.40 p.m.]: I consider myself extremely privileged to have known Bernie Banton. I first met Bernie in 2004 when I was working as a workers compensation lawyer with Slater and Gordon in Sydney. I met him with my boss at the time, Ken Fowlie, who is a renowned asbestos litigation lawyer, and I was instantly struck by Bernie's passionate dedication to his cause. Bernie was a man of enormous integrity who always spoke his mind. One of my fondest memories is of his warmth to me. One of my first duties as Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney was to attend an Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia event. I remember being very nervous. I entered the room and Bernie saw me looking a little lost. He came up to me, gave me a hug and kiss and introduced me to all and sundry. I will never forget that because I was nervous and Bernie came to my rescue.
Bernie was also more than generous to me during my election campaign for the seat of Balmain. He agreed to front one of my election leaflets, and I have no doubt that his endorsement was absolutely significant in the eyes of the electors. I cannot thank him enough for that. When I first met Bernie he was representing asbestos victims in the fight to secure a non-binding heads of agreement with the Government, James Hardie Industries, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Unions New South Wales. The heads of agreement was a major breakthrough for asbestos sufferers, setting out a framework for a legally binding agreement with James Hardie to provide long-term funding for the victims of its former subsidiaries' asbestos products.
At that time, and then during the fight to secure an adequate amount of compensation for past and present victims, I watched with a sense of awe as Bernie, struggling with a dreadful disease, became the most extraordinary human face of what is arguably the most prominent workers compensation fight in recent history. 4434 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Bernie worked as a planer between 1968 and 1974 in a James Hardie factory at Camellia. He got the job through his brother, Ted. He worked in a badly ventilated part of the factory and endured intense exposure to asbestos dust. The group Bernie worked with were known as the "Snowmen" because they were covered from head to toe with the white dust of asbestos in the manufacture of kaylite. Bernie left the job in 1974. Of the 137 people who worked with him in that factory, fewer than 10 are alive today.
In 1999 Bernie was diagnosed with asbestosis. Just two years later Bernie lost his brother to mesothelioma, and at about the same time became involved in the fight to achieve justice for the victims that James Hardie had so brutally discarded. This fight was long, it was tough and it simply would not have resulted in a win if it had not been for Bernie. In his own words, Bernie was "dragged through a pit of hell by a mob of bottom feeders". In November 2006, when the final agreement to secure compensation for Hardie victims was signed, Bernie played a pivotal role in securing $4.5 billion over the next 40 years for those who suffered, and continue to suffer, from this dreadful disease. The victims include employees, tradesmen, contractors and innocent bystanders, who were all exposed to deadly asbestos dust.
As vice-president of the campaigning body, the Asbestos Diseases Foundation, Bernie fronted up to almost every day of the commission of inquiry in 2004, despite his illness, to sit opposite the judge and remind this country of the victims whom he refused to let be forgotten. Even just one month ago Bernie was still campaigning, presenting a petition containing the signatures of 17,000 people supporting the listing of the mesothelioma drug Alimta on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. His courage and willingness to keep going, to keep fighting, is truly inspiring.
Bernie's fight means many things to me, and to us all. His courage is indicative of the power of the human spirit—the power of one person to change history. But it is also a fight intimately connected to the important role of unions in modern working life. Organised labour has been central to this battle and unions have been absolutely vital in securing justice for thousands and thousands of victims. Bernie always spoke so warmly and so devotedly about Karen, his wife. He spoke of her as his true love and it was wonderful to witness their devotion to each other. I understand what Karen must be feeling at this time. I pass on my sincere condolences to Mr Banton's wife, to his children, and to his extended family and friends. We love him and we will miss him.
DAVIDSON ELECTORATE YOUTH ACTIVITIES
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [5.45 p.m.]: Young people who live in my electorate of Davidson undertake various creative and physical team activities outside school hours. In the past month I have attended performances at two local schools in Belrose: Fiddler on the Roof at Covenant Christian School and a Shakespeare festival at John Colet School. I congratulate the casts and crews on their outstanding school productions; it is encouraging to see such creative talent in our local youth.
Two other local primary schools also recently celebrated outstanding successes in inter-school competitions. Roseville Public School recently came second in the Tournament of Minds in the Division of Maths and Engineering. Notably, the competition organisers complimented the school on its team spirit and the cooperation between all participants, awarding them the Spirit of the Tournament Award. Equally impressive is Lindfield East Public School, where two teachers began an after-hours robotics class for years 5 and 6 students. This has led to two teams being placed in the final 10 out of 120 teams across the State that entered the New South Wales Junior RoboCup at the University of New South Wales. I wish the school good luck competing in the first Lego League Robotics Competition at Macquarie University in Sydney on 2 December. Congratulations to the leadership at all those local schools on offering their students activities to build life and learning skills that will benefit them in the years to come.
Like my own children, many school students play sport in the local area. While I hear regularly of the successes of local sporting teams, the most significant in recent weeks is the victory of Lindfield Soccer under- 12As in the State Club Championships. The boys won a fantastic Champion of Champions Grand Final 4-3, coming back from a 1-3 halftime score line. They scored the winning goal only in the final minutes. Congratulations to the boys, the coach and parents.
The growing deficiency of sporting facilities on the Ku-ring-gai side of my electorate has parents and children in despair. Apparently Ku-ring-gai has one of the lowest number of sports fields in the State. In making these comments I am particularly mindful of the matter of public importance that members discussed this afternoon about the need for outdoor recreational activities to fight childhood obesity and to invest in children's 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4435 long-term health. Little Athletics in Ku-ring-gai does not even have a full 400-metre running track and is fighting to upgrade Bannockburn Oval at St Ives. Other local sporting clubs are also under strain, with many constituents properly concerned that sporting facilities in the local government area should be increased rather than lost.
During the summer months the North Shore Junior Cricket Association runs one of the largest junior competitions in New South Wales, ranging from under-9s to under-l6s and involving 2,400 players. This year 140 teams are playing, compared with 124 last season, with 82 morning and 58 afternoon teams. The association reports that up to 200 North Shore school children are deprived of a game every weekend because of a shortage of playing fields. Soccer is in a similar position, being the main winter sport on the North Shore. There are 17,000 players, growing at a rate of 5 per cent to 10 per cent a year. The Soccer Association has warned that players will have to be turned away next year due to a lack of grounds.
The efforts of Ku-ring-gai Council to negotiate approval from schools to use their sporting facilities out of school hours for community sport has assisted as a short-term solution. Council is also planning to develop some new grounds in North Turramurra, but that will take years to develop. In light of the problems, it is concerning that the concept plan for the University of Technology, Sydney, Ku-ring-gai campus site has failed to take into account the genuine need for playing fields. The development plan proposes replacing the current sporting oval with a smaller passive recreation area and residences. Whatever happens to the overall University of Technology, Sydney, site, the oval must be retained for public use, preferably for young team sporting activities. The New South Wales Government should be working to help facilitate this outcome.
NEWCASTLE BUS SERVICE REVIEW
Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [5.50 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the Newcastle network review. Newcastle Buses and Ferries is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its services to ensure that the people of Newcastle have access to bus services that meet the needs of our growing city. When I was elected I made a promise to the people of Newcastle to assess and improve bus services, and I am following through on that promise. The review proposes faster, more direct routes to major hubs such as John Hunter Hospital, the University of Newcastle and major shopping centres. The review is also looking at how we can better integrate bus, rail and ferry services and improve bus stops to encourage more people to use public transport. We have a responsibility to provide services where they are most needed, and that means we have to be prepared to change the way we currently offer bus services in our city.
Currently in the central business district up to 30 buses an hour run up and down Hunter Street in peak times, while in Mayfield residents have to catch up to three buses to travel to John Hunter Hospital, a journey that can take more than an hour. There will be hard decisions to make during the next few months, but we need to recognise that with the changing needs of Newcastle we have to take a different approach to the provision of services. It is not viable to operate bus services that no-one uses just because historically the route has always existed. We are looking at how we can obtain the most effective service levels for as many residents as possible in greater Newcastle. We have a responsibility to make the journey as pleasant as possible, which is why we are also looking at how we can improve bus stops in inner Newcastle by working with Newcastle council.
The changes proposed in the Newcastle network review are significant, and I have encouraged residents in the Newcastle community to have their say on the proposals. In addition to the traditional methods of consultation, including brochures and community forums, I have also launched an innovative web-based resource developed by a Newcastle company. The website, www.bangthetable.com/busreview, is providing my constituents and other residents in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas with an opportunity to interact, share ideas and vote on priority areas in relation to public transport. So far the level of interest is encouraging and the debate is spritely. I am pleased with the constructive nature of most of the comments on the site. Not all are favourable, of course, to the review, but they are largely constructive. I will read into Hansard a number of the contributions to the site. From Commodore:
If Newcastle Buses want people to use them they need to look at the quality of service as well as routes. Its good that new buses are coming but its the whole experience that counts—the worst thing is standing at the stop not knowing when the bus is coming and if there will be room on it—this is unpleasant and stressful and not a good way to start or end work for the day
From AndrewD:
[A] lot of people have a very negative perception of buses. Since I started taking the bus a lot of work colleagues have expressed surprise at my choice and air their views that buses take too long and are filled with smelly, undesirable types. 4436 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
I recently thought how good it would be to have a "friends of public transport day" to try and turn this perception around and get people focused on the benefits of having public transport.
From Man3668:
On the subject of general bus operation, I'd like to see the concept of PrePay for Newcastle Buses. It works well in Sydney (and no, I'm not saying that we should do it because Sydney does it—it's a good idea, that's all)—there are a heap of priority corridor routes where you cannot buy tickets on the bus—you can only board if you have a dippable ticket beforehand. This makes it a much quicker journey for all passengers. Perhaps this concept could be introduced on the proposed priority corridors in peak hours.
And from Captain Scarlet:
The bus I use to get to and from the CBO has been streamlined in part according to the map on this site and it should make for a quicker journey, so that's great. I think it's a big ask to try and satisfy everyone—whatever type of public transport they use—but I reckon Newcastle Buses should be commended for doing a great job with the strategic corridors approach.
The review of Newcastle buses and the consultation period are about Novocastrians providing input on Newcastle's bus services and having ownership of that process. The network review is an example of the Iemma Government responding to the changing face of Newcastle by improving transport links, simplifying networks and providing more direct services. Our overall objective as a Government is to provide quality public transport that will encourage more people to board buses and leave their cars at home.
CASTLE HILL ELECTORATE SCHOOL BUS SERVICES
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [5.55 p.m.]: I think all members would agree that one of the most important things government can do is to guarantee the safety of our children. Kids, particularly young kids, are vulnerable and often the authorities have to go that extra mile to ensure appropriate standards of protection are met. That is why the actions of the State Transit Authority in cancelling the 623 bus service without considering the consequences is so reprehensible. The 623 service used to come up North Rocks Road to New North Rocks Road and then loop around McDonald Road and Becky Avenue to Bowral Street to pick up children from Christ the King School, North Rocks. It then collected further groups of kids from North Rocks Public School and Muirfield High School before running along North Rocks Road and turning right into Farnell Avenue, where it dropped the kids right outside North Rocks Community Centre.
That meant that children attending after-school child care at the community centre got onto the bus on a quiet back street behind Christ the King School, and exited it outside the child care centre. From the point of view of child safety it could not have been better. All that changed on 5 November. That day the 623 did not arrive. Kids were lined up as usual at the gates at the back of the school. They had to be supervised by teachers until their parents arrived to pick them up. The 623 route had been truncated. Whereas once it connected Parramatta and Beecroft stations, it now shuttles between Westfield North Rocks and Beecroft station. So the kids now have to cross Statham Avenue on the other side of the school and catch the new 546 service. A teacher has to accompany them across the road and wait with them until the bus comes. Whereas previously they waited in the security of the school grounds, now they are required to stand alongside a busy regional road.
Unlike the old 623 service, the 546 service does not turn right from North Rocks Road into Farnell Avenue. Instead, it runs down Balaka Avenue into Farnell Avenue below the community centre. Because there is not a bus stop that far down Farnell Avenue the children are let off on Balaka Drive. A childcare worker has to wait for the bus to arrive to accompany the children across Farnell Avenue, a busy through road. What Christ the King teachers and affected parents find most galling is the fact that the STA did not even have the decency to let the school know what was intended. There was no discussion about the matter, let alone a letter detailing what was to happen. Instead, a form letter from Joseph La Rocca, school liaison officer at the Ryde depot of the STA, was sent advising:
To Whom It May Concern:
As you are aware in order to continue to provide your School/College with a suitable bus service, State Transit has undergone through some major changes recently.
The attached document will assist you with changes made. In this document you will notice that some of the services we provide have changed route numbers.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any question you would like answered regarding these changes. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4437
That attached document lists changes to school bus services 760, 754 and 757. There is not a word about the 623 service! The Government is known for its failure to consult but this episode takes this sin of omission to dizzy new heights! I understand the STA audited the route—consistent with the promise in a brochure it sent to some affected passengers to "assess school bus services"—and determined that no children from Christ the King School caught the 623 service. Karen Greenwood says she was told that an inspector went to the wrong bus stop. He did not realise the children got on at Bowral Street! Of course that is the reason Joseph La Rocca did not notify the school about the cancellation of the service: he did not think anybody from the school was using it. Yet the school told me that up to 14 children a day, and a minimum of five, caught the bus to go to after- school care.
What are the possible remedies? One solution would be to extend the new 623 service route at 3.00 p.m. to take in Christ the King School. The bus currently starts in New North Rocks Road and circles Westfield before heading back along North Rocks Road. It would probably take only an extra two minutes run to continue along New North Rocks Road to the McDonald Road-Becky Avenue-Bowral Street loop. The drawback to this proposal is that the children would have to be dropped off on the other side of North Rocks Road. There is a signalised pedestrian crossing they could use, but it is a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire unless the bus travels its old route of Farnell Avenue-Parkland Road-Jenkins Road. Another alternative would be to re-route the 546 service once a day so it loops around McDonald Road, Becky Avenue and Bowral Street. If this proposal were adopted there would have to be a bus stop located on the eastern side of Farnell Avenue below the community centre so that the children are able to alight safely without having to cross a busy road—with no pedestrian crossing, I might add.
Michelle Federer of North Rocks made another suggestion: re-routing the 757 school service, which picks up in Bowral Street, so that it takes in North Rocks After School Child Care before proceeding west down Barclay Road to Baulkham Hills. This bus picks up in Bowral Road. She says children from North Rocks Public School also use the childcare centre so there would be no shortage of passengers on the extension. The one thing we must avoid at all costs is doing nothing. The Government thinks that it is necessary to have a 40-kilometres an hour zone along the entire 1,150 metre frontage of The Kings School, yet it is prepared to force kindergarten kids to cross busy main roads to get home. If you can understand the logic behind its decision making you are a better man than me.
STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE INDIGENOUS TRAINING SCHEME
Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [6.00 p.m.]: State Emergency Service [SES] volunteers provide an invaluable service in country regions. With their distinctive orange overalls, they are usually the first on the scene after car accidents and natural disasters, and provide the majority of general rescue efforts in rural areas. I meet them regularly, and most recently I attended a ceremony to mark the accreditation of the Deepwater State Emergency Service as an official Community First Response Unit and to help open the extensions to the unit's headquarters. But given the nature of this work and its demands on people's time, there is always a need to recruit more volunteers. In many smaller centres with declining populations this has become a challenge. Today I seek Government support for a fine initiative from the State Emergency Service northwest region, which takes in a large area along the Queensland border.
The project is the brainchild of the regional controller, Steve Martin, who realised the untapped potential of the large Aboriginal population in the area. Their involvement in the organisation has been minimal and there was a reluctance to become involved. Mr Martin, with experience as captain-coach of a rugby league team in the region, half of which was indigenous, could see no reason why that mix could not be successfully applied to the emergency organisation. He began his recruitment drive in Moree, a major town in the northwest region with a population of around 10,000, a large proportion of whom are indigenous. Moree experienced major floods in 1955 and 1976 and further high-level flooding in four of the past five years, making it vital that a strong State Emergency Service presence be maintained in the area.
In early 2005 Mr Martin talked to the local Gamilaroi elders, attended a number of committee meetings, had the State Emergency Service added to the list for the Moree Aboriginal Interagency meetings for the area and spent many hours talking to the local indigenous chaplain, Miles Berghan. Through this process he learned about the customs, the beliefs, the attitudes and the enthusiasm that could be created for worthwhile projects. He found many Aboriginal people were reluctant to enter organisations as novices in an already tight- knit unit of Caucasian members. As a result he developed a group training scheme in which all participants were at the same level throughout. He also made it an intensive training package so that the goal to achieve was 4438 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 immediate and did not involve attending one night a week for 12 to 18 months. That way those who completed the course could take their places in a unit on equal standing with the other unit members.
Recruiting began through a presentation to Gamilaroi people undertaking a certificate course in land management. That involved creating an emergency evacuation plan in a flood emergency. When the participants realised that so many of the areas where their people lived were at risk in such a situation they willingly agreed to undertake State Emergency Service training. The course involved two weeks of full-time training, five days per week, eight hours per day with one full day of assessment. Mr Martin told me that the camaraderie shown, not only within the group of trainees but with the trainers and the staff alike, was a pleasure to experience. There were, however, obstacles such as the lack of current drivers licences, which was overcome through car pooling, and a lack of telephones for contact, with each of the new crew then being issued with a pager. It has been amazingly effective.
The indigenous community is extremely proud of the 10 out of 14 recruits who completed the course and who are regular trainers at the unit each week. The Moree unit, including those new recruits, responded as out-of-area assistance for the major Hunter and Maitland storms and floods in June of this year, and again at Lismore for the terrible storm damage suffered last month. Also, on invitation by the director general, the Moree unit attended the State Disaster Rescue Competition held at Wollongong as observers, and they are keen now to be involved in the next one. Following this success another intensive training project has begun at Toomelah, a small town near the Queensland border with an indigenous population of 280. However, training costs run at approximately $8,000 plus time involved for staff, which equates to approximately $800 per participant. That means that this successful training course can only be rolled out within a limited budget. I urge the Government to continue to support this successful recruitment scheme across New South Wales.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP MORATORIUM
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.05 p.m.]: I was horrified to hear today that the Minister for Primary Industries intends to lift the moratorium on planting genetically modified [GM] canola in New South Wales. This is a terrifying decision and one that will threaten the health of many generations to come. It will also destroy our international reputation as a provider of clean, green foods, taking away many markets from farmers currently receiving premium prices, all because the Government has succumbed to the pressures exerted by international chemical companies and noisy lobby groups. This decision takes away our freedom of choice and exposes us to a future where farmers will lose money and consumers will face very serious health threats while chemical companies will become obscenely rich. There has simply not been enough research to justify exposing New South Wales to this threat.
Overseas mice fed with Roundup ready soy experienced liver and pancreas problems. In America a genetically modified food supplement killed around 100 people and caused thousands to become sick. Farmers have reported pigs and cows becoming sterile after eating genetically modified corn. Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed severe and crippling allergies, and sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields. Is this the future we want for New South Wales? We should not have this scenario thrust upon us because of pressure imposed by multinational chemical companies. Public attitudes to genetically engineered [GE] foods are now universally negative. Japan, China and the European Union are removing the genetically engineered component from consumer products.
At present Australian is selling canola at a premium because of its GM-free status, while at the same time GM countries such as Canada, America and Argentina have seen their markets seriously damaged. We face the possibility of farmers being forced to bear most of the risks and costs associated with this move. The Australian Bureau of Resource Economics has estimated that segregation costs associated with the introduction of genetically modified canola would cost non-GM farmers between 5 per cent and 15 per cent of the farm gate value of their crop. Non-GM farmers would also be forced to bear the inevitable contamination costs. A Western Australia study concluded that contamination of non-genetically modified crops is inevitable, segregation is not practical, and identity preservation may be achieved but only at a significant cost. The study recommended that the non-GM market should not be sacrificed at the expense of the GM market, and the Western Australia Wheat Board said that genetically modified wheat in Australia will jeopardise our export markets completely.
Do we really want to follow blindly in the footsteps of the Canadians and the Americans? Widespread contamination of American non-genetically modified crops resulted in the loss of its $US300 million export market for maize, and Canada has lost its export market for canola. There are claims that genetically modified crops cost the American economy at least $US12 billion from 1999 to 2001. Our farmers cannot afford a 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4439 disaster like that. The American and Canadian national farmers unions, the American Corn Growers Association, the Canadian Wheat Board, organic farming groups plus more than 200 other groups are lobbying to ban the introduction of genetically modified wheat. If one State government lifts genetically modified crop bans it will condemn the entire nation to genetically modified crops. Seed and pollen will cross State borders and there will be no hope of containment.
Both New South Wales and Victoria previously backed a national uniform approach to genetically modified crop marketing issues under the Gene Technology Act review and must continue with that approach. To date we have no mandatory system for testing, identity preservation, segregation, transport or handling, even though the Primary Industries Ministerial Council was directed to have a plan ready for public consultation by the end of 2007. Have the costs associated with introducing genetically modified products been considered? Increased costs of seed certification, testing, crushing, cleaning machinery, identity preservation, segregation, grading equipment, transport, storage silos and labelling will result. There is justifiable fear that these costs will be passed on to non-GM farmers, the food industry and consumers, who are increasingly opposed to genetically modified products. GM-free growers, apiarists and harvesters face financial ruin if they are unable to protect their products and markets from contamination.
What about the threat of herbicide tolerant plants? More weeds are likely to result from pollen transfer to canola's weedy relatives—wild radish, turnip and charlock. Why have Bayer and Monsanto refused to submit any seed from their approved genetically modified varieties for trials to compare the aspects of agronomic, environmental and safety performance against the best conventional varieties? What do they have to hide? The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator must review all new evidence on health, safety and environmental impacts of genetically modified products, plus the need to fully label all products produced using GM technology. Will GM-free producers be protected to ensure that there is no contamination of animal feeds? Will non-genetically modified seed varieties remain available? Will insurance brokers underwrite non-GM farmers' claims if their crops become contaminated with genetically modified varieties? There are so many questions.
In America it is claimed that 94 per cent of benefits from genetically modified canola went to genetically modified seed and chemical companies, not to farmers, for the first five years. We need to learn from these lessons and ensure that we protect our farmers, our environment, consumers and Australia's clean, green image. The Minister should extend the ban on genetically modified food crops for at least another five years to allow more extensive studies to take place. The risks are far too high.
Private members' statements noted.
[Acting-Speaker (Mr Wayne Merton) left the chair at 6.10 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 13 November 2007.
Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [7.30 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill 2007, which provides the Sydney Catchment Authority with better administrative arrangements and a penalties regime more in keeping with the potentially significant consequences of poisoning or polluting Sydney's drinking water. It is crucial that four million people can confidently drink water without recourse to bottled water or home sterilisation. For that reason the Sydney Catchment Authority must be provided with adequate powers, including penalties as well as sufficient resources, to adequately police the catchment area.
Sydney is blessed with proximity to agricultural land and wonderful rural landscapes, although some risks are associated with that. For that reason water quality must be monitored and protected. This would be true of the catchment area for any metropolitan area in the world. We are fortunate indeed that compared with cities surrounded by hundreds of kilometres of industry where industry forms part of that catchment our problems should be so relatively modest. However, we must be vigilant, and for that reason the Sydney Catchment Authority must be a best-practice organisation.
The Opposition understands that the purpose of the bill is to provide for administrative improvements, stronger and clearer definitions of the authority's statutory powers, higher penalties and scope for penalty 4440 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 enforcement. The bill also removes sections of the Act that are redundant due to changes in other legislation. The bill also makes provision for the repeal of certain orders declaring lands to be special areas—those areas no longer required for operational purposes by the Sydney Catchment Authority. Fundamentally these are administrative improvements that enable the authority to function as a bulk water provider without being drawn into overlapping areas of allied, but different, environmental responsibility, such as the environment protection legislation.
The Opposition understands and accepts the need for clearer and cleaner lines of demarcation. However, the Opposition has a number of concerns that I will draw to the attention of the House. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move amendments to the bill in the Legislative Council. The Opposition's first concern is that a Sydney Catchment Authority officer in the process of issuing a catchment correction notice or a catchment protection notice is able to do so orally. It should not be beyond the scope of a modern government to provide its officers with a piece of paper and a biro so that they may issue the notice in writing, giving some reason or reasons for that notice.
I understand that a written notice is to be provided subsequently, but the Opposition believes that it is very important that it is done at the time of the issuing of the notice. It is important that due process be seen to be done and when officers walk onto private land with all the powers of the State behind them it is important to retain public confidence in those powers and in their administration. When one considers that an incorporated farmer, or industrialist or business owner might end up with a $250,000 fine as a result of that visit, or a private resident might end up with a $120,000 fine, one would agree that it is important to begin the process as it would be concluded, even in a court of law—that is, officially, impartially and transparently.
There is nothing transparent about words exchanged, perhaps in anger and confusion, on site. Telling a landowner anything with a few more or less informal words is a dangerous practice. If a written notice is good enough for police when they issue a traffic infringement notice it is every bit as good for an officer of the Sydney Catchment Authority. It seems extraordinary that the Government could have contemplated such a course of action and, disappointingly, it reflects on the Government's lack of concern or respect for governance and the need for the community to understand the laws they are accused of infringing, especially, I repeat, when the fines are to be so very large.
The Opposition's second concern, which I foreshadow the Opposition will seek to amend in the upper House, is the absence of any definition of catchment health indicators. If the Government is committed to improving the status and standard of Sydney's drinking water it is not only necessary that there be catchment audits, as provided for in the Act, but that catchment health indicators used to measure trends in environmental health be transparent, objective and scientifically based.
The bill provides that a public authority or person approved by the Minister is charged with the development and approval of those health indicators. It is an improvement that a person appointed by the Minister rather than a nominee of the Minister will conduct those audits. However, it is disappointing that there is no provision for the public and interested stakeholders to contribute to the development of those indicators or for those indicators to be publicly known. It might happen, but the bill is unclear in that regard.
The Opposition would prefer that the bill be amended to ensure that those criteria, those indicators, are properly prescribed by legislation. Again, with fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, it seems only reasonable that people know exactly what are the outcomes criteria of the Sydney Catchment Authority. The Opposition seeks an assurance that the bill will provide for routine agricultural management activities, known as RAMAs, as provided for in the Native Vegetation Act and the Threatened Species Conservation Act.
If the Government is unable to assure the farmers of New South Wales that routine farming activities will not be treated in the same way that they are in these two other Acts then the farmers of New South Wales in the Sydney catchment area, which includes the farmers of Goulburn and the Wingecarribee, might be afraid. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this point in his reply. Our third concern is the six special geographic areas that will no longer be listed as special areas because the authority no longer requires them for its operations. This is a necessary separation of the responsibilities of the Special Catchment Authority as a bulk water provider from other allied responsibilities, and the Opposition understands and accepts it.
However, two of those six special areas have areas of Crown land within them—one, of course, is on the Nepean River. As the bill presently stands those two areas would automatically revert to being Crown land without special protection. We encourage the Government to investigate and assess these two areas of Crown 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4441 land for their conservation and environmental values before deciding whether to retain them as Crown land or incorporate them into reserves or parks. We reserve our right in this respect to move amendments in the upper House. The Opposition has consulted widely and we accept the need for the Government, after instituting a review of the legislation three years ago, to now improve the workability of the Act and the capacity of the authority to deliver clean drinking water to the people of Sydney.
Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly) [7.40 p.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill 2007. The land owned and managed by the Sydney Catchment Authority comprises a large part of my electorate of Wollondilly and also a large part of the electorate of the member for Goulburn. I have a keen interest in the functions of the Sydney Catchment Authority and I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. The millions of people in Sydney, the IIlawarra, the Blue Mountains and the other areas supplied by the Sydney Catchment Authority who wish to protect our precious drinking water catchments will welcome the provisions in the bill. The continued drought and the issues raised by climate change mean that we all have an interest in ensuring that the infrastructure and lands around our water storages are protected and managed effectively. Those who have visited the dams in the Sydney Catchment Authority's area of operations will acknowledge that they are surrounded by some of the most pristine areas of land. We must protect these lands fully and properly for our needs and the needs of those who come after us. In the same way that dams, which are critical infrastructure, deserve the highest level of protection and effective management, so too do the surrounding landscapes.
This bill, in strengthening the regulatory functions of the Sydney Catchment Authority, will ensure that people who carry out activities that cause damage to water quality or catchment health are dealt with appropriately. It recognises the seriousness of these damaging activities and the risk they pose to our drinking water. For example, the current legislation does not provide for authorised officers to require offenders or potential trespassers to answer questions, or to seek information and records. The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 has these provisions. The bill enables authorised officers to determine the facts of an incident and permits them to take the necessary steps to stop an impact on water quality or the health of the catchments. No-one in this Chamber would doubt the importance of conducting more effective audits on the health of the catchments.
The bill sets out a sensible and practical approach by providing the responsible Minister with the discretion to appoint a public authority or other person to develop and approve catchment health indicators. The proposed change to the timing of catchment audits to every three years allows for greater opportunity to analyse trends in catchment health as well as align catchment auditing with state of the environment reporting under the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. I have been involved with the Sydney Catchment Local Government Advisory Group for some years and I think that bringing audits in line with a three-year roll around is a very sensible approach to passing on information in a timely manner to our partners in local government and to those who live on the land.
The bill provides for improved capacity to meet the challenge of managing Sydney's water supply and the protection of its catchments. The bill reflects a greater alignment with the changed natural resource legislative and regulatory framework that has developed since the commencement of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act. The New South Wales Government continues to deliver on important measures to increase the security of its urban water supply, which supports a population of 4.5 million people. This requires a commitment to asset management as well as catchment protection. The bill clarifies matters that are contained within the operating licence granted to the Sydney Catchment Authority and also better articulates its functions, including reporting obligations.
I have been working with the Sydney Catchment Authority, the local community and councils since the Sydney Catchment Authority was introduced. It is important that we understand the need for a cooperative approach by Government and the owners of the land to manage the catchment in the best possible way. I draw the attention of the House to the rectification action plans and the catchment action plans, into which I have had some input over the years, that link back to the regional plan and the importance of a cooperative approach to managing our catchments. My property is one such property. My back fence is actually Warragamba Dam. I understand the importance of the bill and what needs to be done to protect our water quality. Many people around me share the same sense of importance that the water we send from our properties to the dam is of the best possible quality.
This enables the Sydney Catchment Authority to get on with the job of sending to Sydney the best quality water possible. I commend the Sydney Catchment Authority for the cooperative manner in which it has 4442 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 dealt with landowners. It is also great to have the necessary legislation to deal with unruly operators. For example, some years ago, before the Sydney Catchment Authority came into existence, a couple of people purchased a 100-acre or 40-hectare block adjacent to ours. One weekend they arrived with D9 bulldozers and chains and cleared the entire 100-acre block. That caused significant concern not only for us but also for the quality of the water that was then washed from that property into the catchment. The legislation was not strong enough to deal with that kind of environmental degradation. I believe the Sydney Catchment Authority is going in the right direction to ensure that people understand they have a responsibility, as well as a privilege, to live in the drinking catchment.
The bill sensibly provides greater integration with other environmental legislation by aligning powers where appropriate to those set out in other legislation, such as the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. For example, the amendments proposed will enable the Sydney Catchment Authority to authorise employees and contractors to enter and occupy land for the purpose of its concurrence and notification functions. This will enhance planning outcomes in the catchment. In conclusion, I repeat: it is better that we achieve quality outcomes in the catchment through a cooperative model and I know that many, if not all, of the people work that way. I commend the bill to the House⎯there are some who just do not get it.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [7.49 p.m.]: The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill will amend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act, which arose from the McClellan report following the 1998 cryptosporidium scare in Sydney. The McClellan report drew attention to very poor administration of the catchment area by Sydney Water. The idea of the legislation was to set up a separate authority, implement the recommendations of the McClellan report and ensure that Sydney's water was forever safe. Unfortunately, this year an algal bloom has spread across Warragamba Dam. The Minister has assured us that the department was mining water about 30 to 40 metres underneath the bloom. For the first time since 1998 the public's sense of security relating to the administration of Warragamba Dam by the Sydney Catchment Authority—not by the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard—has been called into question. I do not cast any political aspersions about that; it has happened and the public has rightly become concerned about the administration of its major water source by the Sydney Catchment Authority.
The legislation has very far-reaching implications, as so much legislation does. It does not relate simply to the catchment area; it relates also to land that affects the catchment area and to water that flows from land outside the catchment area into the catchment area. It therefore affects many more people than one might envisage, and it particularly affects farming practice. Farmers are entitled to certainty in the operation of their farms and, whatever the Green movement might like to say about chemical sprays and other aspects of modern agriculture, the fact is that farms close to Sydney are essential for the life of Sydney. Sydney cannot exist without a wide-ranging farm structure on its perimeter, some of which interrelates with the Sydney water catchment.
The bill has two objects. First, it will give officers of the authority the same power as that administered by council officers. People with authority by statute will have the power to enter private land, and that private land will be, of course, farmland. In addition to council officers, Environment Protection Agency officers, Department of Agriculture inspectors, Federal Department of Primary Industries inspectors, now Sydney Catchment Authority personnel will be able to enter farmland and tell farmers how to run their properties. Their power is not restricted just to access. The member for Goulburn has so rightly drawn attention to that extraordinary provision, proposed section 62D, which states:
Catchment correction notice may be given orally.
A catchment correction notice is basically a notice stating that one must not do anything in the catchment. It continues:
(1) The SCA may, instead of giving a direction under this Division by notice in writing, cause the direction to be given orally by an authorised officer.
The member for Goulburn was very persuasive in her argument when drawing attention to this extraordinary provision. How many other provisions seek to interfere with people's livelihoods and businesses; that authorise an officer to enter upon land and issue an oral direction that has effect for 72 hours and that, if breached, may lead to the imposition of fines of up to $250,000? Not even the police have that power. If you are stopped by police, they must give you an infringement notice or a court attendance notice. Officers of the Environmental 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4443
Protection Agency must issue notices under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. National Parks and Wildlife Service officers are required to issue notices.
As the member for Goulburn has said, modern science has progressed to the stage at which enforcement officers are equipped with a book and biro in order to issue notices so that people know with certainty what section of the law they are said to have breached, about which they can seek legal advice if they wish. I note the presence in this Chamber of the member for Maroubra. If the member for Maroubra was contacted in his legal practice by someone saying, "I have been given an oral notice", he would ask, "What was said?" The reply would likely be—as such clients frequently say—"I can't remember, he just told me I had to stop." Such people could be liable to fines of up to $250,000.
Unfortunately, this bill is drafted in such a way—not by the Minister personally I acknowledge; it was drafted by Parliamentary Counsel in conjunction with officers of the Minister's department—that it constitutes a massive erosion of people's rights and an extraordinary invasion of their right to certainty under the law. As members of a democratic Parliament we must ensure certainty under the law. It is an extraordinary invasion of personal rights that unidentified officers may enter one's property, produce an authority and issue an oral direction that has force and effect for 72 hours, the failure to comply with which may result in a massive fine. I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns of the member for Goulburn. If not, we will move appropriate amendments in the Legislative Council. They will not attack the principle of protecting the catchment; they will defend the principle of people's rights to certainty under the law.
I now wish to draw attention to the extraordinary penalties provided in the bill. Recently we debated in this House the appropriate penalties to be imposed for offences relating to defacing and defiling war memorials—that is, memorials erected by a grateful nation to its heroic dead. This Parliament, under this Government, refused to increase those penalties to have them equate with penalties imposed for offences relating to defacing and defiling places of Aboriginal heritage. Such penalties that relate to war memorials remain at $4,000 maximum, whereas such penalties that relate to Aboriginal heritage are $11,000. This legislation allows penalties of up to $250,000. The Government is prepared to show and exercise enormous power, at least in a legislative sense, so far as these sorts of issues are concerned—issues that one suspects the Green movement would only too enthusiastically endorse—yet it is not prepared to show the same enthusiasm for honouring our war dead.
The underlying philosophy that pervades so much of government thinking, even if it is subconscious, is the now prevalent trend among the Green movement that farming is somehow wrong. Unless a farm is organic, unless the farmer ploughs the land standing behind a mule with a single wooden plough, or unless the farmer uses only manure as fertiliser, then farming practice is against the order of nature and is hostile to our environment. The Minister might well say that is an extreme view, and of course it is an extreme view—
Mr Philip Koperberg: Not from you, Chris.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: It is so hard to be angry with the Minister. It is an underlying philosophy, which pervades all levels of government and bureaucracy, and legislation such as this—with its oral notices, massive penalties and power to extend beyond the catchment area—is unfortunate. That is the significant point. We cannot protect water by simply saying, "We are going to protect the lake" or "We are going to protect the dam and the immediate parcel of land around it." We have to protect the water that flows into the dam or lake— everybody acknowledges that—and surely we have to do it in a way that consciously acknowledges that other users exist and does not give to government bureaucracy extraordinary and draconian powers, which violate fundamental legal principles.
One would hope that the Government will take on board the very sensible comments of the member for Goulburn and that it will address why, in 2007—nine years after the 1998 scare and the creation of this authority—we are still having serious problems with algal bloom. I am advised that the reason is that we are simply not using the technology that is available. The Government has not provided the necessary funding for appropriate, high-standard and available technology that would control or minimise the algal bloom. It will not be eliminated; no-one would expect that. It is an indictment of the Government that it has allowed the bloom to grow to the extent it reached last month—I have not received any reports this month, but I am sure it has not gone away—even though it received advice that modern, updated technology was available that would eliminate or minimise it. If the situation worsens, we will once again be forced to boil our water, as Premier Carr asked the people of Sydney to do back in 1998. Only in Dakar, Bangladesh and the Congo— 4444 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Mr Philip Koperberg: And in Folsom prison.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: —and in Folsom prison are people in major cities forced to boil their water, as people in metropolitan Sydney had to do in 1988. I ask the Minister to take on board the remarks of the member for Goulburn, to reconsider the extraordinary provisions in this bill, to acknowledge the right of people to farm, to acknowledge the necessity for coexistence with farmers and to ensure a more reasonable balance than that set out in this bill.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [8.00 p.m.]: The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill is based on a review that took place three years ago. Why has the Government taken so long to introduce this legislation? If changes were needed, surely they should have been implemented following the review, not three years down the track. I acknowledge that the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water was not in this place three years ago, but his predecessor should have acted on this very important issue. According to the Minister, the review identified useful amendments, including more effective and efficient regulatory powers for the Sydney Catchment Authority and improved management of the audit of Sydney's drinking water supply catchments. He claimed that the bill gives the Sydney Catchment Authority the necessary and appropriate means to protect the catchments surrounding its dams. As previous speakers have pointed out at length, those necessary and appropriate means include the ability to walk onto farms and properties, the ability to issue orders and the ability to levy enormous, draconian fines on farmers. I do not believe that necessary and appropriate means have been provided in the bill anyway. That is the issue I want to address tonight.
The Sydney Catchment Authority was set up in response to recommendations from the McClellan inquiry into Sydney's water supply, which followed the cryptosporidium and giardia scare of 1998. At the time the then Minister for Natural Resources, Craig Knowles, acknowledged the need for an audit of the catchment. I add that this matter was raised in debate by the member for Terrigal. Former Minister Knowles said:
The audit will provide a fundamental basis for future and ongoing control of the management of the catchment.
This bill now proposes the watering down—excuse the pun—of the former audit structure. In future, audits will be carried out every three years, rather than every two. The Minister said that this would provide a more meaningful trend analysis of the health of the drinking water catchment. I do not understand how that could be the case. Previously the audits were carried out every two years and now they will be carried out every three years. The Minister's rationale for that is that the audits will provide a more meaningful trend analysis and also align the frequency of the audits with the state of the environment reports. The Government wanted to conduct the state of the environment reports every four years, rather than every three. The Opposition stopped the Government from doing so in the last Parliament. I assume that if the Government had been successful, the catchment audits would have taken place every four years—in effect doubling the time frame to carry out the audits. If the Government believes that lengthening the time between audits will provide a more meaningful trend analysis, it should conduct the audits once a decade, and then it will have a really meaningful trend analysis. It is absolute nonsense, and I will explain to the House the reason why.
The blue green algal bloom, which the member for Terrigal spoke about, came out of nowhere. The Sydney Catchment Authority first learnt of the bloom on 3 August, in the middle of winter. Anyone who knows anything about algal blooms knows that they never occur in the middle of winter. I spent some years chasing blue green algal blooms up and down the Hawkesbury-Nepean rivers. I did not bother going in winter because the blooms only occurred in summer as the warmer weather brought them to the fore. But this bloom occurred in the middle of winter when water temperatures were about 14 degrees. Blue green algal blooms thrive in water temperatures of more than 20 degrees. The bloom was caused by the run-off of nutrients into Lake Burragorang. Clearly, the Government had not been managing the catchment according to the intentions of Justice Peter McClellan in his recommendation to establish the catchment authority after the cryptosporidium and giardia scare of 1998.
The actions of the Sydney Catchment Authority in this entire issue have been extremely reprehensible. The Sydney Catchment Authority did not act on the blue green algal sample results taken on 6 August because, it said, there was insufficient information. The water intake was moved to deeper levels after another round of tests on 16 August, but still the Government said nothing. It did not alert the public, the four million people of Sydney, to the potential problem. Indeed, the Government failed to declare an incident until 28 August, and then it spoke up only because the bloom was being reported on radio 2UE. Amongst documents I received as a result of a freedom of information application to the Sydney Catchment Authority is an email from Mr Ramen Charan 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4445 advising that an incident had to be declared because it had been broadcast on 2UE's 8.30 a.m. news. In his email to Shannon O'Connell, Mr Charan wrote:
I thought 2UE also had something in their 8.30 news. Based on this I suggested to Graham Begg to declare an incident.
The issue was not important enough to alert the people of Sydney, but as 2UE had reported on the bloom in its 8.30 a.m. news the authority's officers thought they had better do something. A day later, on 29 August, the Minister finally opened his mouth and said that Sydney's drinking water was not under threat and all anyone would notice would be a discernible taste and odour. He added that the bloom was likely to disappear as quickly as it came. They were the Minister's words. In a briefing note dated 5 September, Dr Lee Bowling, chair of the Science Committee of the New South Wales Algal Advisory Group, said:
It would probably take a major meteorological event to suddenly disrupt the bloom. Such an event would be more likely in autumn than at this time of year.
Rain falling across the surface of the reservoir is unlikely to have any significant impact on the algal bloom unless it is very heavy and prolonged.
He went on:
The bloom may disappear naturally in the next few weeks, however experience of blooms in other major New South Wales reservoirs of comparable size shows that blooms very often tend to persist for several months or even longer.
Although the Minister knew this, he said that the bloom was likely to disappear as quickly as it came. The bloom has not disappeared yet and is not likely to disappear until autumn, according to all the information we have. If it does not rain and the level of water in the reservoir continues to fall, Sydney's water supply will be put at threat. The Minister cannot deny that. Channel 7 and Channel 10 contacted Dr Brett Neilan at the University of New South Wales for comment. Before the interview Dr Neilan contacted the Sydney Catchment Authority to advise it what he would say. Officers of the Sydney Catchment Authority later thanked him for the notice of the media event and his handling of it and paid him $300 to analyse test results and write a five-page report. The authority then quoted him in a draft "What the experts are saying" questions and answers paper. So it was cash for comment. I concede it was not a lot of money, but still cash for comment. There were, however, some home truths in that paper. For example, Dr Neilan said:
This kind of algal event has never happened in the 46-year history of the lake. Only once in the dam's history has a very small, localised surface scum developed … and this was some 15 kilometres upstream.
I understand that at its peak this bloom was 25 kilometres long. The current bloom is 13 kilometres long and contaminates Lake Burragorang for at least 12 metres from the surface. According to the document that we obtained under freedom of information there are serious concerns about the next eight metres and about the heavy metals and other contaminants at the bottom of the dam. Members should not take my word for that; I have a ministerial briefing note that was sent to the Minister on 27 August that states:
Algae in general tends to remain on the surface while species such as cyanobacteria or blue-green algae can move vertically through the water column in response to their food production and environmental conditions. Starting near the surface during daylight hours, they tend to sink as they become denser when producing sugar following photosynthesis and then rise again through the night. This movement tends to result in higher concentrations of algae within the top 12 metres or so of a storage such as Lake Burragorang.
The SCA is currently drawing water from between 22 and 30 m below the current surface level, below the band of high algae concentration and is considering whether to draw off even lower.
As members know, the Sydney Catchment Authority did end up drawing water from 30 metres down because it found high levels of blue-green algae within the top 20 metres of water. If we take out the top 12 metres of water, not the top 20 metres of water, the amount of usable water left in Warragamba Dam is at its lowest level ever—at just 28.3 per cent. Half the water behind Warragamba Dam—
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: The member for Castle Hill appears to be enjoying himself and he is being quite flamboyant and colourful. However, he is not speaking to the leave of the bill. I ask you to draw him back to the leave of the bill.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: To the point of order: I am trying to illustrate why the Government should rethink this notion of a three-year catchment audit rather than a two-year catchment audit. I need to expand on the blue-green algal bloom issue to prove to the House why that should be the case. 4446 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I uphold the point of order. However, I am certain the member for Castle Hill was progressing towards the substance of the bill. I encourage him to hasten in that direction.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I have another document entitled "Operational Plan 2" that refers to this catchment audit and to the blue-green algal bloom. It states:
If the toxin level is greater than one microgram per litre the Government intends to shut down the Warragamba pipeline supply to Prospect.
The Government made that statement in this document, yet today it is saying it is necessary to audit the catchments only once every three years and that the two-year audits are no longer needed. I do not understand how extending the audit from two years to three years will help alleviate the situation outlined in this operations plan. I do not know whether members are aware that in warm weather blue-green algae has the capacity to double in volume in five days. According to situation reports that we obtained under freedom of information the number of bacteria increased ninety-fold between 29 August and 9 September.
Mr Phillip Costa: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. The member for Castle Hill is talking about monitoring the catchment but the bill talks about a three-year rolling audit. The member for Castle Hill is not speaking to the leave of the bill. He should be brought back to the leave of the bill.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I will not uphold the point of order, but I again urge the member for Castle Hill to confine his remarks to the bill in the same way the shadow Minister did.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I think I am confining my remarks to the leave of the bill. I am sure members will recall that earlier in debate the member for Terrigal referred to boiling water. The difficulty with this issue is that toxins produced by blue-green algae are worse than cryptosporidium or giardia, and the only way of eliminating them is to run the water through powdered activated carbon systems. That is the only way to get rid of cryptosporidium or giardia; it is not possible to get rid of them by boiling of the water.
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: The member for Castle Hill has flouted your ruling on two occasions and he is persisting in speaking on a subject matter that is entirely irrelevant to debate. He has only 1½ minutes left of his speaking time. If he does not address the bill I will call points of order for the remaining 90 seconds.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I seek an extension of time.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I do not think that standing orders provide for an extension of time in this debate.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: They most certainly do; you should read them.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The standing orders provide for an extension of time in an agreement in principle debate. However, I will first rule on the point of order. The member for Castle Hill should confine his remarks to the leave of the bill. I acknowledge that he is dealing with matters that have been raised in the debate, so I will not uphold the point of order. I will seek some assistance from the Clerk in relation to the request for an extension of time.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: There are 44 seconds remaining for you to do so. In the meantime, I have some serious concerns about this three-year audit issue.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I am ruling on the request for an extension of time. I will put the question that the member's speaking time be extended. If the question is agreed to the member's speaking time will be extended to five minutes.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: Earlier I referred to the fact that according to the Government's experts an algal bloom can double in size in five days. Proposed section 42C states: 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4447
(1) The SCA must report to the Minister on the SCA's progress to achieve improvements in catchment health, to prevent degradation of existing catchment health and to maintain existing catchment health, having regard to the findings of the most recent catchment audit conducted under this Division.
(2) Such a report must be provided within 2 years after the catchment audit report is received by the Minister.
After a problem has been identified it can take five years from the moment the audit starts to the time that the problem is rectified. According to the Government's experts the algal bloom can double in size within five days. I think members would agree that that is a pretty serious state of affairs and it is an issue that the Minister desperately needs to address. By introducing this piece of legislation the Minister potentially is putting the survival of Sydney under threat, and I am not exaggerating when I say that. If the Government puts its "Operational Plan 2" into action and it shuts off the Warragamba water supply we are talking about a 35-week supply of water to Sydney.
The Government must come clean and explain how this piece of legislation and its actions will improve this issue. Simply increasing penalties for those living and working within the catchment, in particular farmers, will not necessarily resolve the issue. It will make life difficult for farmers who are doing it tough already— farmers I might add who are in the electorate of the member for Goulburn. Indeed, the city of Goulburn is in the Warragamba catchment. I do not think the Government is planning to close down the city of Goulburn. Maybe it is. Maybe it is part of the Government's grand strategy to declare the entire catchment a special area and to close down all activity within that area.
I do not think that is the solution. We need proper monitoring and a proper audit of the catchment to ensure that we do not get a runoff of nutrients as soon as it rains after an extended dry period, which causes the blue-green algal bloom that, as I said before, will threaten Sydney's water supply and, therefore, the survival of Sydney as a city. That is an issue the Government must address and that is the issue that must be addressed in this piece of legislation, but that has not been addressed. I would be interested to hear the Minister explain how he intends to deal with this grave threat to Sydney.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.19 p.m.]: I make a contribution to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill 2007. The shadow Minister led for the Opposition and stated clearly that we intend to seek amendments in the upper House. I point to documents that were tabled this afternoon by the Minister. I believe it is very timely and appropriate that on the eve of debate on a bill that was introduced a number of days ago the Minister made public the Sydney Catchment Authority Annual Report 2006-07.
Some might say I am a conspiracy theorist, that I think there is something amiss in the Minister choosing to table this report and then debating a bill that relates to the Sydney Catchment Management Authority. I obtained a copy of the report and, although I have had limited time in which to read it, I believe there are questions that should be asked in this debate relating to the Sydney Catchment Management Authority. The shadow Minister has spoken already about concerns that people who carry on agricultural pursuits in the Sydney catchment management area can be subjected now to verbal orders to comply. I have a great problem with that. As members of Parliament and as representatives of our local electorates from time to time we hear of constituents who have been directed to do something by a department or who have been given information by or been involved in discussions with a department about a particular issue. That issue can relate to anything across the spectrum of responsibilities of the State Government or, indeed, the Federal Government.
The problem is that, after a constituent has been informed by a public servant of a course he or she should follow or a path he or she should take in order to resolve his or her particular concern, when push comes to shove sometimes that public servant will suggest that what the constituent was told was never said: it becomes a case of he said, she said, and so on. We have all experienced it. I am not trying to demonise public servants and I am not trying to cast aspersions; I am saying that there are difficulties when the spoken word is relied on as a contractual arrangement or as an order to comply. I suggest there will be great difficulties in allowing a verbal order to be given to a landholder to comply with what is regarded as an urgent situation by an inspector or the person in authority who issues the directive. For instance, a police officer can issue a fine or an infringement for some particular reason on the spot.
Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The lights have literally gone out.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): I am sure someone will attend to that. In fact, someone is doing so now. 4448 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: On that point, in fact, there was another report delivered today. It said that unless New South Wales addresses the electricity generation needs of this State by the year 2011-12 the lights will go out more often. But the point I was making was that orders to comply can be issued verbally. At the moment if a person is apprehended by a police officer that police officer can issue a written fine in a number of instances that we have debated recently in this place. There is great disagreement about such powers, but a person given a written fine has a document that is legible and able to be used in court to defend a fine or infringement notice.
Page 28 of the Sydney Catchment Authority Annual Report sets out the Sydney Water Catchment Management (General) Regulation 2000 compliance activity over five years. The suggestion is that these audits be conducted every three years. I seek from the Minister a response with regard to the following. In 2002-03 there were 69 penalty infringement notices; in 2003-04, 79; in 2004-05, 118; in 2005-06, 61; and in 2006-07, 30. In 2002-03 there were 41 warning letters issued; in 2003-04, 69; in 2004-05, 105; in 2005-06, 79; and in 2006- 07, 39. There were no prosecutions in 2002-03, one in 2003-04, four in 2004-05, five in 2005-06 and two in 2006-07. I ask the Minister what was going on in 2004-05? What brought about the enormous increase in penalty infringement notices and warning letters? When one looks at the figures in the document one has to ask whether the proposed legislation will assist. Page 137 states:
2001-02 Bushfires
Twenty-four claimants have initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court against the SCA and three other government agencies, seeking compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of the 2001-02 bushfires. The main allegations against the SCA are that it failed to undertake sufficient hazard reduction burning or to allocate sufficient resources to fight the fires. The value of these claims is in the vicinity of $6.5 million. A hearing date is yet to be set.
This document has a considerable amount of very interesting material. Sadly, I have not had the benefit, nor has the shadow Minister, of reading it thoroughly and raising more concerns with the Minister. I suspect that in due course the shadow Minister, who was meticulous with her homework, will obtain this document, read it and ask the Minister more questions, as I have just done. I ask the Minister in his reply to indicate what happened with regard to the increase in the number of prosecutions. Was there a particular issue being addressed or was it a particularly energetic and conscientious authoritative person on the Sydney Catchment Authority who initiated these prosecutions?
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr John Aquilina and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 2007
RICE MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 2007
WINE GRAPES MARKETING BOARD (RECONSTITUTION) AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 16 November 2007.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [8.29 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Agricultural Industry Services Amendment Bill 2007 and the cognate bills. From my understanding and from briefings received by the Coalition, under this legislation the levies set to promote marketing and other industry factors⎯such as the restriction of fruit fly and industry control generally⎯will remain but will be levied on wholesalers rather than growers. Those empowered to collect this levy rely on what the growers say is their actual production. At present marketing board members must ascertain each farmer's production level, assign a levy to it and collect the levy from each producer. Under this legislation the wholesaler will be able to accurately apply a levy to the individual grower's production value and then the authorities can collect the money from only 20 or 30 wholesalers instead of thousands of producers.
Provided the system works that way, it will be easier, it will be more accurate and it will give an opportunity for the correct amount to be levied. It will be far more efficient and effective not only in promoting and marketing rice and wine grapes but also in ensuring that fruit fly and other pests into the area are restricted. By operating within the confines of the principle of the legislation growers will pay the proper moneys. Far be it from me to accuse growers of penny-pinching and not paying the correct levies, but this procedure will be more 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4449 structured. Growers will have an opportunity to pick up a net amount in dry times and not have to be looking for money. These areas are experiencing hard times at the moment.
To digress a little from the bill, it is a pity that Minister Koperberg is not in the House. Recently I attended a meeting of more than 700 farmers in Mildura who were absolutely screaming about the lack of water being allocated, especially for permanent crops such as grapes and rice. The lack of water being allocated had many citrus growers and wine grape growers contemplating pulling out their vines. That would have been a huge retrograde step for the fastest growing industry in Australia: the wine industry. In addition, I refer to the continuation of a great agricultural industry responsible for putting an important commodity on the dinner tables of people in Australia and overseas⎯namely, rice. These farmers need water for their crops.
The Minister needs to look closely at how water is allocated. He needs also to give due consideration to widening the fixed water charges. I visited farmers around Hay, Griffith and Deniliquin. They were screaming about the amount of water available for stock and domestic use only. The drains and canals carrying the water are in such disrepair because of the Government's lack of attention and the effects of the drought. The first flush of water intended for stock and domestic purposes brings all the rubbish with it and is unable to be used. A second flush has to be sent. Yet the Government and Minister Koperberg maintain⎯and have done so on several occasions⎯that the collection of fixed water charges is for maintenance of these channels. Clearly, that system is not working. I appeal to the Minister to review the water allocation to these farms.
The Minister has visited these farming areas and is aware of the problems faced by the growers. I commend him for doing so because quite often Ministers from this Government have not been prepared to get a bit of dust on their boots and to look at the real problems in regional and rural New South Wales. The Minister visited the area, but now he has to act. Rather than listen to Michael Costa, the Minister should apply pressure to Michael Costa in Cabinet and ensure that the money raised through these levies is returned to the farmers and is used for other measures in drought-affected areas.
I return to the leave of the legislation. I believe that this legislation is in the best long-term interest of the growers. We have not heard any negative comments from the New South Wales Farmers, the Ricegrowers' Association or Winegrowers Association. However, I caution that the inspectors' representatives are appointed in conjunction with the growers and their organisations to ensure the inspectors carry out inspections efficiently and effectively. In addition, those inspectors must have accountancy, economic and audit skills to ensure the system is not being rorted in any way, shape or form. They should ensure that the correct moneys are collected and spent properly in the areas the growers' organisations wish them to be spent for the advantage of the industry. With those few remarks, I commend the legislation to the House. As always, we will keep an eye on the implementation of this legislation and see how it works. We will stay in touch with the growers to ensure that this legislation works for them and not against them.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.36 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Coffs Harbour for his contribution to the debate and for his support of these bills, which introduce small but important changes to boards and committees that provide services for primary producers. They are vitally important to the economic prosperity of our State and a great many families. The Agricultural Industry Services Amendment Bill provides for a more efficient mechanism for collecting rates payable to industry services committees. This money currently is used to fund research, education and marketing programs for citrus fruit and wine grape growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.
The Wine Grapes Marketing Board (Reconstitution) Amendment Bill extends the Act for a further two years while a voluntary industry code of conduct is developed. This will allow the industry to move to a more deregulated market where prices are negotiated between individual growers and wineries in accordance with the code. The Rice Marketing Amendment Bill makes a number of minor changes to the Act to clarify the intention of one exporter of New South Wales rice. The bill increases also the independence of the Rice Marketing Board by providing for the nomination of an additional two board members and for the chairperson of the board to be elected from the independent board members rather than from industry-elected members. These are small but necessary amendments to three Acts that are very important, especially to primary producers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area of New South Wales. The amendments will clarify and simplify arrangements for boards and committees providing services to producers of citrus fruit, wine grapes and rice. I commend these bills to the House.
Question—That these bills be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bills agreed to in principle. 4450 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Passing of the Bills
Bills declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bills.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT (PROSECUTIONS) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 13 November.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [8.40 p.m.]: The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Prosecutions) Bill amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water stated in his agreement in principle speech that the bill specifies the organisations, persons and classes of persons authorised to institute proceedings for an offence under the Act. The justification given by the Minister was that the existing legislation, which allows any person to institute proceedings under the Act, needed to be overhauled because there have been no successful prosecutions in recent years instituted by private individuals and that that is costly and inefficient for the judicial system because the evidence adduced in such cases has been found to be questionable.
The two major animal welfare groups—the RSPCA and the New South Wales Animal Welfare League—support this legislation. Both are authorised as approved organisations to institute prosecutions under the Act. If the bill is passed, the only persons authorised to institute proceedings will be an approved charitable organisation—namely, the RSPCA, the New South Wales Animal Welfare League, an officer who is an authorised inspector under the Act with inspectorial powers and the power to issue penalty notices, a police officer, the Minister or the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries, a person with the written consent of the Minister or that director general, or any other person or body prescribed by regulations for that purpose. In other words, the Government will have control over all prosecutions except those instituted by the New South Wales Animal Welfare League or the RSPCA, and private individuals will lose their right to institute proceedings.
The right of private individuals to institute proceedings for a criminal offence is a legal tradition. It was first given statutory embodiment in the Fines and Penalties Act 1901, but it always existed at common law. In fact, the Australian Constitution provides for private prosecutions if members of Parliament take their seat without proper authority. It is not only traditional but also embodied in the Constitution, which was framed in 1901 when private prosecutions were widespread. The encouragement for people to bring them and so to save the Government the cost of doing so was the fact that they could recover a moiety or one-half of the fine at the discretion of the court.
The areas in which people can institute private prosecutions have been cut back over the years. However, the one major area in which private prosecutions were still the norm was in the enforcement of the legislation relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. Police officers rarely bring prosecutions under this legislation because they feel that they are not equipped to do so and the department does not have an army of inspectors. If it has any at all, I will be surprised. I would like to know how many have been employed. Although councils pick up animals and hold them under the Companion Animals Act, they do not see themselves as enforcement agencies under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Under this legislation, the RSPCA and the New South Wales Animal Welfare League will end up bringing the enforcement proceedings. Neither organisation is well resourced—they are largely volunteer-based, charitable organisations—and the moiety of the fine will not cover the cost of the prosecutions or the cost of the inspectors in many cases. Of course, those organisations have had some success. I give them full credit; they are wonderful organisations comprising wonderful people. However, they have also had their failures. Some years ago former Premier the Hon. Neville Wran was prosecuted for an offence in my electorate at the Wyong Local Court by the RSPCA for the alleged mistreatment of two donkeys that he and his then wife had at their property in the Yarramalong Valley. The case went for more than a week and the court found in favour of Mr Wran and awarded costs of tens of thousands of dollars against the RSPCA. The RSPCA is out of pocket as a result of bringing these prosecutions.
The answer is to set up a system of departmental inspectors to enforce these laws. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is a Government Act of Parliament. Leaving its enforcement, as this legislation will, to 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4451 the two major welfare groups is not an effective law enforcement method. As I said, the two organisations are wonderful, but they do not have adequate resources to be law enforcement bodies. Since this legislation was presented to the Parliament I have received a letter from Mr Graeme McEwen, the chair of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, which is a branch of the Victorian Bar. I will read out part of the letter because I wish to acknowledge the fact that Mr McEwen has done the research and because I am impressed by the argument that he advances. Mr McEwen believes that the bill should be opposed and he urges members of Parliament to do so for a number of reasons, some of which I will read to the House. Mr McEwen states:
… you will be aware that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has the power to take over and discontinue a private prosecution brought in relation to a Commonwealth offence, and it would appear this is so in the case of the NSW DPP in relation to a New South Wales indictable offence or a prescribed summary offence …
Of course, the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions has on a number of occasions taken over privately launched indictable matters and discontinued them. A young man who was accused of murdering his parents in the Sutherland region was originally the subject of a private prosecution brought by Mr Tony Gilham, his uncle. The New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions took over the case and discontinued it. Since then fresh evidence has come to light and the Director of Public Prosecutions has instituted proceedings, which the Court of Appeal authorised to go ahead last week. The proceedings had been challenged on the basis of the time delay. The point is that the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions takes over prosecutions and discontinues them, which supports the argument advanced by Mr McEwen. He further states:
accordingly it is respectfully suggested that the DPP's power under section 9, Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1999 … would be sufficient to address the concerns raised in the Second Reading Speech of the Bill, and would confer the added advantage of not appearing to politicise the process of prosecution by making a private prosecution subject to the consent of a political representative;
the notion expressed in the Second Reading Speech by Mr Michael Daley, Parliamentary Secretary, that the Bill is necessary " … to remove any encouragement to deliberately or inadvertently trespass to obtain evidence" fails to acknowledge two key matters, first, that well-established principles exist by which Courts determine whether to admit or exclude illegally obtained evidence and, second, laws exist for protection of private or public property from trespass, with appropriate penalties;
accordingly the objects of animal protection under the statute should not be surrendered or subverted where adequate legal measures exist to deal with evidence so obtained;
the suggestion [of Mr Daley] in the Second Reading Speech that in the past six years there were "several" [an unspecified number by Mr Daley] unsuccessful private prosecutions, including where two were withdrawn, hardly comprises substantive grounds for removing the right of private prosecution: even the remoteness of the DPP in the prosecution offences has not been a check …
Mr McEwen goes on to provide some examples—
in any event, I am informed that at least two of these private prosecutions were successful, one against the manager of a battery farm with 320,000 hens, who pleaded guilty (and where the inspection of the premises was conducted with the assistance of the NSW police); the other against a dairy farmer who pleaded guilty to repeatedly beating a dairy cow confined to a milking stall with a heavy vat spanner to her head; and that another was settled upon terms;
the Bill's provision that a person may only be authorised to institute proceedings for an offence under the Act with the written consent of the Minister for Primary Industries or the Department's Director-General undermines prosecutorial independence by politicising the process: it would be better (if consent were thought to be necessary) that it be the consent of the State DPP or, failing that, in order to encourage a public perception of independence, the Attorney-General;
there is a strong common law tradition of private prosecutions and, indeed, the English system relied on principally private investigations and prosecutions up until the time in the 19th century when organised police services were sanctioned by statute, and the establishment of the first centralised prosecution agency by way of a Director of Public Prosecutions in 1879;
I come to a very important point that Mr McEwen raised. The bill will inhibit the prospect of test cases as to the protective reach of the statute. He cites the example of the recent well-publicised case concerning the solitary circus elephant Arna. That was a prosecution brought on the ground that the circus elephant was suffering because it was denied the company of other elephants. The circus elephant was kept in solitude; therefore it was suffering psychological stress and depression. That case was brought to test the boundaries of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act as far as it related to animals kept under those conditions. An animal may be confined in circumstances that are not necessarily harsh, and it can be well fed in terms of allowed space, light, air and water, but because it is a herd animal and it is kept in solitude the animal may still be ill-treated, as that circus animal was according to Mr McEwen in the test case brought for the benefit of the elephant.
The RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League are organisations that essentially monitor the treatment of pets, such as dogs, cats, donkeys, and birds kept in aviaries, but such organisations do not have the resources to 4452 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 run test cases concerning organisations such as circuses. This is an important matter that is not addressed by the legislation. Mr McEwen went on to state:
it is drawing a long bow to suggest, as it was suggested in the Second Reading Speech, that the Act " … may encourage trespass and raise biosecurity concerns because private individuals are currently permitted to commence proceedings for an offence under the Act":
It is indeed drawing a long bow to argue that biosecurity concerns are involved. There has been no allegation made or evidence adduced to support that sentence in the Parliamentary Secretary's agreement in principle speech on behalf of the Minister.
I do not intend to deal in detail with other aspects of the bill. I note that the member for Sydney has circulated amendments which will give effect to the suggestion by Mr McEwen that the Minister or the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries should be removed as consent authorities and replaced by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sure the member for Sydney will discuss the rationale for her amendments, but I assume the rationale is that the Minister is a political officer and the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries, although independent, acts upon the direction of the Minister, whereas the Director of Public Prosecutions is totally independent.
I believe there are concerns associated with this bill that should be addressed and the Coalition would like the opportunity to address them. At present we have not had the opportunity to do so. After the member for Sydney has spoken in the debate, the Coalition will move for the debate to be adjourned so that the matter can be given detailed consideration. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to an adjournment of the debate. After all, this is not urgent legislation. The bill should be given proper consideration by the Parliament and proper consideration by the community. The welfare of animals is an extremely important issue. Australia has the world's highest rate of companion animals. Over 73 per cent of homes have a pet cat or dog. Australian pets mainly are well treated but, as we all know, a number of animals are put down each year.
Ms Clover Moore: 60,000.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The member for Sydney tells me that the figure is 60,000 in New South Wales. That is a disgrace. People who ill-treat animals are the lowest of the low. To ill-treat a defenceless animal is a despicable and disgraceful act. Such people deserve severe and harsh penalties. I am pleased to say that some cases prosecuted before the courts have resulted in jail sentences being imposed on some people who have wantonly and wilfully ill-treated defenceless animals. But that is not the issue before the Parliament.
The issue before the Parliament is the administrative matter of how prosecutions are instituted. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to the Opposition's request for an adjournment of the debate after the member for Sydney has made her contribution to it so that the matters addressed by the bill can be given further consideration. After all, the welfare of animals is the paramount concern of the legislation, and any Government should be prepared to allow a proper debate.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [8.58 p.m.]: I oppose the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendments (Prosecutions) Bill 2007 because it will limit the initiation of proceedings for animal cruelty offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to inspectors under the Act, the Minister, the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries, the police, the RSPCA, and the Animal Welfare League. By virtue of the bill, private parties will be able to take court action against offences only with the written permission of the Minister or the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries. The Government tells us this is necessary to prevent inefficient and costly prosecution of cases brought by the public. However, there are safeguards in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 that allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over indictable and prescribed summary offences and stop them from proceeding in court, thereby preventing malicious litigation.
The Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, which comprises 90 members of the Victorian Bar Association, notes that in 1996 the former Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, removed provisions requiring ministerial consent for private prosecutions. The Attorney-General stated in Federal Parliament:
Those provisions were originally enacted for the purpose of deterring private prosecutions brought in inappropriate circumstances … However, since establishing the office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions the retention of those provisions is difficult to justify. That is particularly so now that the Director of Public Prosecutions has the power to take over and discontinue a private prosecution … 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4453
Courts can also order complainants to pay court costs, forcing them to seriously consider whether their cases have merit. The Vice-President of the World League for the Protection of Animals says this discourages private citizens from taking out vexatious cases. The Government tells us that allowing private members to initiate court actions for cases of animal cruelty encourages illegal trespassing, thus creating a biosecurity risk that could cause outbreaks like equine influenza and Newcastle disease. But the courts have the power to disregard evidence obtained illegally, and Voiceless, an animal rights advocacy group, says that most cases initiated under the Act have been based on evidence obtained lawfully. Animal Liberation, whose members have initiated private prosecutions for animal cruelty cases, maintains that in all their cases evidence was collected lawfully, often with police assistance. Its members tell me that the deputy police commissioner supports New South Wales police working with them, and the police willingly do so. There are also penalties for illegally trespassing on private property and this discourages trespassing.
Furthermore, Animal Liberation says that there is no evidence linking disease outbreaks to prosecutions by private citizens. I would like the Government to inform the House what evidence was used to determine that private prosecutions could create a biosecurity risk. I share the view of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel that it is more appropriate to address biosecurity concerns through security measures and trespassing law rather than removing rights that exist under legislation to protect animals from cruelty. The Government says the bill is necessary because none of the cases in the past six years has been successful. My office consulted Animal Liberation, whose members have initiated nine prosecution cases under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 in the past nine years, and I would like to refer to some of those cases.
Two defendants pleaded guilty. In the first case the defendant was the manager of a battery hen farm that housed 320,000 hens. I am told this was the first successful prosecution of a battery hen farm in New South Wales and I understand inspections were carried out with the assistance of the New South Wales police. In the second case the defendant was a dairy farmer who pleaded guilty to repeatedly beating a dairy cow on the head with a large, heavy spanner for continually kicking milking cups. The third case was settled out of court when a feedlot company agreed to provide shade for cattle after 1,200 had died from heat stress. Another case was withdrawn due to a technicality, but Animal Liberation tells me that the magistrate considered that the case was worth proceeding with and did not make an order for costs.
A very famous case that was initiated involved Arna, the circus elephant. This case was referred to by the member for Terrigal. It was argued she had suffered psychologically due to her solitude, because elephants live in close, bonded family groups. That is how they live in the wild. I understand this was the first case to argue psychological suffering in a wild animal. Experts gave evidence, and I am told information from the case is internationally recognised by wildlife protection organisations, including the Born Free Foundation. Also relevant to this debate is the private prosecution case in Tasmania against a poultry farm in which a private citizen legally visited a battery hen farm and bought hens while taking photographs and video footage. Animals Australia notes that the magistrate's 18-page judgement, in which the defendant was found guilty, demonstrates the importance of this privately initiated case. The magistrate stated:
The only evidence in this case referring to justification or necessity for the cruelty inflicted upon these birds was in the broadest terms as to economy and profitability of egg production, but such references by no means deflect me from what otherwise would be and is my strong view that all these birds have been treated with unjustified and unnecessary cruelty, constituted by great indifference to their suffering and pain.
Many of the privately initiated cases are complex and attempt to set court precedents on pain and suffering and raise awareness of animal suffering. I share the concerns of many animal welfare groups that it is unlikely that underresourced police and charitable organisations will be able to initiate such cases. By removing such cases from the courts we are limiting the community's ability to define and shape what it considers to be the cruel treatment of animals, particularly in the case of industrial farming. I request that the Government make a commitment to the House to significantly increase funding to the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to ensure they are resourced to conduct more inspections and proceed with cases that were previously initiated by private citizens. Private prosecutions are also a common law tradition. The director of Voiceless, Brian Sherman, AM, said:
The right for third parties to commence prosecutions against animal cruelty crimes reflects a common law right that dates back hundreds of years. It is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system, and the New South Wales Government is proposing to take it away.
The bill will not only stop courts from hearing many cases of animal cruelty but will also encourage animal cruelty because perpetrators will know that legal action is unlikely. I share the concern of many animal welfare groups that the intention of the bill is to allow industrial animal cruelty to continue without interference. Unlike 4454 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 many European countries, the New South Wales Government has refused to phase out intense farming practices that include battery chicken farms and pig farms that use sow stalls, in which the female cannot even turn around to see her young, and farrowing crates, and there will be incentive to disregard the current inadequate policies because court action will be unlikely. Private citizens will be able to initiate court action only with the permission of the Minister or the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries. That will create a conflict of interest because the Minister and the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries are required to support industry. Corporate counsel for Voiceless, Katrina Sharman, asks:
Will the Minister responsible for ensuring the success of agribusiness in New South Wales, a multibillion dollar industry, willingly endorse proceedings being commenced against factory farmers? This is a political quagmire, which the Minister would be best to avoid.
I agree with the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel that this situation will seriously politicise cases and that it would be more appropriate for private citizens to apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General. I foreshadow that I will move amendments at a later stage that will require private citizens to apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed with court action for offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. By saying that third-party initiated cases are unnecessary, the Government is saying that the current situation is adequate and that we can afford to reduce the protection given to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. But I say that as a civil, just and humane society, we should seek to reduce animal cruelty. The bill will do the opposite. I conclude by referring to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who said that we can judge the heart of a man—and we should read "woman" there as well— by his treatment of animals. I believe the same can be said of the Government.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Terrigal and the member for Sydney for their contributions to this debate. At the outset I should say that this House is entirely united in its desire to have animals treated humanely. One of the measures of society is how its animals are treated. The member for Terrigal said that people who mistreat animals are the lowest of the low. He will get no disagreement whatsoever from this side of the House with that proposition.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Prosecutions) Bill 2007 brings an important reform to prosecutions made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 and associated regulations made under the Act. The bill proposes amendments to specify who may initiate proceedings for a breach under the Act or regulations. The new provision provides that only an approved charitable organisation, an inspector authorised under the Act, the responsible Minister, the director general of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, a person who has the written consent of the Minister or the director general, a police officer or any other person or body prescribed by the regulations may commence proceedings for an offence.
I turn briefly to some of the points raised by the member for Terrigal and the member for Sydney. The member for Terrigal spoke about the value or the perceived value of private prosecutions. I reiterate—and this was quite evident from my detailed agreement in principle speech—that none of the private prosecutions taken in this State in the past six years has been successful. The House ought to consider in contrast the record of the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League New South Wales and New South Wales police prosecutors, which initiated 154 prosecutions in 2006-07 in addition to their other significant enforcement actions. Of these prosecutions, 101 resulted in convictions. The propositions advanced by the member for Terrigal also ignore the fact that private individuals do not have the authorised powers relating to the gathering of evidence that are needed for successful prosecutions to proceed.
For example, individuals do not have powers of entry, powers to take away documents or goods, or other powers that are required in order to gather evidence. In the absence of cooperation on the part of the person they are trying to prosecute—and possibly persecute—in this age of biosecurity risks, legislation that necessitates trespass, possibly theft and other common law breaches cannot be justified. The equine influenza outbreak ought to have taught us that prevention is better than cure in relation to biosecurity risks that also attend unlawful activities. Leaving prosecutions to the bodies authorised in the bill will alleviate these problems.
The proposed amendments will introduce sensible changes to the Act. They will mean that there is a logical connection between those who have authority under the Act to investigate alleged offences and collect evidence and those who have the automatic authority under the Act to commence proceedings. It will ensure that the court's time is used effectively and that defendants do not have to go through the stress of a court case without good reason. Third parties can still provide information to police, the RSPCA in New South Wales or the Animal Welfare League New South Wales regarding matters they consider should be investigated. They can 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4455 still commence proceedings if they have the written consent of the Minister or the director general. These are useful, sensible amendments, and I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.
Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.
Noes, 3
Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Ms Moore
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Consideration in detail requested by Ms Clover Moore.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [9.18 p.m.], by leave: I move my three amendments in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], proposed section 34AA (1) (e), lines 14 and 15. Omit "Minister or that "Director-General". Insert instead "Director of Public Prosecutions".
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], proposed section 34AA (2), lines 20 and 21. Omit "Minister or the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries". Insert instead "Director of Public Prosecutions".
No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], proposed section 34AA (2), line 22. Omit "Minister or Director-General". Insert instead "Director of Public Prosecutions".
My amendments require private parties to get written permission to initiate court cases from the Director of Public Prosecutions instead of the Minister or the Director General of Primary Industries. The Government argues that this bill is necessary to prevent an inefficient and costly situation where unnecessary cases are brought to court. If the Government's true agenda is to prevent unnecessary cases it will indeed accept my amendments because the Director of Public Prosecutions is independent. The Director of Public Prosecutions is best placed to determine whether an applicant's case is worth proceeding with.
The Director Public Prosecutions will know whether evidence is admissible, whether it was illegally obtained or whether claims are vexatious. On the other hand, having the Minister or the Director General of Primary Industries responsible for allowing private court cases to proceed creates a perception of a conflict of interest because the role of the Minister and Director General is, of course, to support industry. While the Government may say it will be impartial, it should address the perceived conflict of interest by giving this role to the Director of Public Prosecutions and supporting my amendments.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.20 p.m.]: The Government has given due consideration to the amendments and its position is that the Minister and the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries administer the Act. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the Minister and the Department of Primary Industries are in the best position to determine whether or not a third party should be given consent to prosecute offences under the Act. I do not understand the amendments moved by the member for Sydney to have the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the director general of the department give authority to commence proceedings under the Act.
Historically in the State of New South Wales the Director of Public Prosecutions has had no greater or lesser right than any other private citizen in relation to enforcement proceedings under this Act. I do not see how it assists to have the Director of Public Prosecutions become involved now. I am advised that the RSPCA is quite satisfied with the support it gets from both the police and the Department of Primary Industries and I do not believe that the RSPCA has ever sought to have the Director of Public Prosecutions involved in any prosecution. 4456 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Honourable members would be aware that the agreement in principle speech clearly articulates that private prosecutions are most appropriately regulated by the Minister responsible for the Act. It must be noted that applications from third parties to prosecute offences are in addition to prosecutions that are already undertaken by charitable organisations, inspectors and police. These organisations are authorised under the Act, and rightly so. The Department of Primary Industries, in conjunction with the authorised organisations, has always taken seriously any allegations of a breach of the Act, and that is the crux of this bill and, indeed, these amendments. The Iemma Government would encourage third parties to take any evidence to these authorised organisations in the first instance.
The amendments would unnecessarily add to the already extensive workload of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Furthermore, these amendments suggest that the member for Sydney has no faith in the Minister's capacity to make informed decisions about what constitutes a breach of this legislation, which the Government and the overwhelming majority of members in this place take extremely seriously. For all these reasons the Government opposes the amendments.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [9.23 p.m.]: The Director of Public Prosecutions is a statutory office created by the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions, under the Act, exercises the power and functions of the Attorney General. While the Attorney General's powers are reserved, the Director of Public Prosecutions exercises the Attorney General's powers concurrently with the Attorney General. The Attorney General is the principal law officer of the Crown, the Crown being, in a modern democracy, the representative of the community. So the Director of Public Prosecutions is the representative of the community in expressing community concern and community outrage at the commission of crime.
That is why the Director of Public Prosecutions is the person who institutes prosecutions for crimes that violate community standards. It does not institute prosecutions of a private nature; it institutes prosecutions where the community has laid down a standard and believes that standard must be maintained for the wellbeing of the community. The protection of animals, which is a recent development in our history—it was only in the nineteenth century that animals were granted any legal protection; until then they were simply chattels of their owner—has evolved gradually through statutory form through the traditional system of prosecution. As I said in my contribution to the agreement in principle speech, private prosecutions were first given statutory form by the Fines and Penalties Act 1901, which was re-enacted in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
What is at stake here and what the member for Sydney has sought to achieve by her amendments is, first, to ensure that the process is depoliticised because the Minister is a political officer and the director general of the department, while a public servant, must act at the direction of the Minister. The Director of Public Prosecutions has statutory independence. The Parliamentary Secretary said he did not understand this, so I will explain it to him. It is to ensure that the process is wholly independent and that a decision is made wholly by a senior officer of the Crown in the interests of the community, not in the political interests of the Government.
Second, the member for Sydney seeks to ensure that there is an overall oversight in the institution of prosecutions. The department is not geared to prosecutions. Government departments are not prosecutorial bodies. The prosecutorial staff, legally trained officers with prosecutorial expertise, are employed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The purpose of the amendments is to have competent, experienced prosecutorial professionals determine whether prosecutions may be made. It is no reflection on the Department of Primary Industries to say that its departmental officers are not trained to be prosecutors; it is a simple matter of fact. Departmental officers are trained to be animal experts, in biology, in animal husbandry, in management, in control of diseases; they are not trained to be prosecutors.
The amendments seek to achieve political independence and proper managerial competence and expertise in the control and oversight of prosecutions. The amendments are perfectly fair and reasonable. One must ask why the Government does not accept such amendments. The reason is twofold. Firstly, the Government, which believes it is the source of all knowledge, wisdom and power, does not like amendments coming from the other side of the House. The Government may be the source of all power but it is not the source of all knowledge and wisdom. Secondly, it does not like independent bodies showing up defects in the government system.
If the Director of Public Prosecutions issues reports saying, "I am unable to institute prosecutions because not enough evidence has been properly adduced or the system is wrong", that will be a matter of public record. The Government might not like that, preferring to maintain control through its Minister or its director general, but it will not criticise itself. It will not say, "The system is defective. We cannot act." It will simply 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4457 sweep it under the carpet. The agreement in principle speech was extraordinary. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the reason for the legislation is because several prosecutions instituted by private persons have failed, but he could not even give the number. With the resources of 200,000 public servants at his disposal he could not tell the Parliament of New South Wales how many prosecutions had failed.
What an extraordinary way to introduce legislation into the House. The Minister has made no attempt to find out how many prosecutions have failed, probably because the Government has not gathered the statistics. The reason for this legislation is not the reason advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary. To the enormous credit of the member for Sydney she is trying to introduce a proper independent role to oversight the administration of the legislation. This is not unimportant legislation. It may have been Dr Johnson, but one of the great English writers, who said that you judge a society's compassion by the way that society treats its animals. That is because animals are defenceless in our social structure, totally at our mercy and completely under our power. A test of our humanity, compassion and responsibility is the way we treat and care for them.
The Government, through the legislation, is saying that it will not put any resources into the protection of animals in our community; rather, it will leave that to two volunteer organisations, the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA. They are wonderful organisations composed of well-meaning volunteers but their staff do not have the training, resources, power and respectability of the New South Wales Government, which is walking away from enforcing the law to protect the animals of this State. The amendment moved by the member is an attempt to ensure that the Government cannot walk away from that responsibility. The Coalition does not understand the Government's opposition to these amendments. The Coalition reserves its position on these amendments in proceedings in both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council.
Question—That the words stand—put.
Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.
Noes, 3
Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Ms Moore
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendments negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Consideration in detail concluded.
Passing of the Bill
Motion by Mr Michael Daley agreed to:
That this bill be now passed.
Bill passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 15 November 2007.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [9.38 p.m.]: The Local Government Amendment Bill 2007 has two purposes: to clarify the relationships between public-private partnerships and to clarify the levying of rates on owners, and not on the owners of a strata plan, for stormwater management. The Government's reasons for introducing the legislation are as set out in the Minister's agreement in principle speech. A number of points 4458 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 need to be made about the legislation. First, the New South Wales Coalition supports the principle of public- private partnerships for the provision of public infrastructure. Under the original 1993 legislation councils were empowered to enter into arrangements for public infrastructure with outside bodies. That was the first time that was permitted: the original 1919 Act, which had been massively amended over the years, did not so provide.
In my area of the Central Coast Mingara Recreation Club, pursuant to the 1993 Act, entered into an arrangement with Wyong Shire Council to provide the Mingara Aquatic Centre, which is the second-largest aquatic centre in New South Wales after the Sydney Aquatic Centre. Mingara Aquatic Centre is a splendid public infrastructure. The provision of swimming pools and swimming facilities is, of course, a local government role, and Mingara Recreation Club provides the aquatic centre in conjunction with Wyong Shire Council. The 1993 Act provided the statutory basis for that arrangement.
The bill seeks to strengthen the powers of councils to enter into public-private partnerships. Clearly, local government faces an ongoing financial battle. It must face the ongoing cost of administration: local government work tends to be labour intensive and its wages bills are extremely high. Local government does not have control over its income stream because its rates are fixed and any rate increases above the consumer price index require the consent of the Minister. Councils cannot determine their rates and Ministers tend not to grant high increases in rates; they tend to try to keep rates to a fairly low figure. That has been essentially a decision of all governments. Not only the present Minister but also his predecessors have had an interest in keeping council rates low. Councils are constrained within their income stream, yet their costs are high.
As the Allan report showed, councils are also subject to ongoing costs transfer by government, especially the current State Government. They get some financial assistance from the Federal Government; indeed, councils now get considerable financial assistance from the Federal Government. However, councils are constantly trying to balance their budgets and also provide public services and public infrastructure. Therefore more and more councils are seeking to take advantage of public-private partnerships for the provision of public infrastructure. The bill defines public infrastructure.
The New South Wales Coalition philosophically supports the idea of public-private partnerships to provide public infrastructure. Some public-private partnerships have been very successful and well managed. Some, like the Cross City Tunnel, stand out as examples at a State level of a badly managed public-private partnership. However, the principle remains sound, and it is therefore important that there be a legislative framework in which public-private partnerships can be undertaken.
However, the Coalition raises two concerns regarding the legislation. First, there is the matter of the New South Wales Parliament. The Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Public Works is currently inquiring into local government private partnerships for asset development. That inquiry has not been completed, yet the Government has seen fit to introduce this legislation without reference to that committee and without waiting for its report. The terms of reference establishing the committee, which were set out in a resolution passed on 21 June 2007 and published in Votes and Proceedings No. 14, provide that "A Standing Committee on Public Works be appointed to inquire and report from time to time with the following terms of reference". The resolution then sets out the terms of reference. One of those terms of reference is that the committee will consist of seven members of the Legislative Assembly, and that Mr Baumann, Mr Borger, Ms Fardell, Mr Khoshaba, Mr McBride, Mrs Paluzzano and Mr Page be appointed to serve on the committee.
One would have thought that a prudent government would have deferred the introduction of legislation of this nature until the committee had completed its inquiry and presented its report. The Government could then take the committee's report into consideration. Or are parliamentary committees set up as work-for-the-dole programs for members of Parliament, simply so they can be made to feel important by examining witnesses and holding hearings, yet knowing that their reports will be ignored? The Standing Committee on Public Works has brought down numerous reports, most of which the Government has totally ignored. Yet parliamentary committees are supposed to be bipartisan. One suspects that this public inquiry will be similarly ignored and will similarly go nowhere. The Coalition takes the position, which it will adopt in the Legislative Council, that the bill should not be agreed to in principle until the parliamentary committee has completed its inquiry and presented its report.
Secondly, I will relate the legislation to current court proceedings involving Parramatta City Council. The proceedings were first determined in the Land and Environment Court and are now going on appeal by Parramatta City Council to the Court of Appeal. I do not intend to comment on the merits of the case; obviously that is a matter for the courts to determine. However, the Coalition is concerned that the legislation could impact 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4459 on the Court of Appeal's decision. I thank the Minister and his staff for their courtesy in offering the Coalition a briefing on the matter. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to take up the offer. We will not divide on the issue until I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister and his staff, if they are prepared to make that arrangement. I express my concern so the matter can be addressed when I meet with the Minister and his staff.
Parramatta City Council has a worthy project to develop a civic square in the centre of Parramatta, which is the great historic centre of Western Sydney and which, along with Sydney, is one of the two foundation settlements of the colony of New South Wales. It is a huge project, with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. Growcon are the contractors, and the city council has put an enormous amount of effort into the planning and realisation of this dream. I would imagine that everyone would like to see the project go ahead; it is a worthwhile project for the revitalisation of Parramatta. However, landowners who are affected by the resumption have challenged the council's power of compulsory resumption in the Land and Environment Court and have won their action against the council.
The concern I express—it is merely a concern; I do not profess to know—is that the legislation could be seen as in some way validating Parramatta City Council's position and therefore it may deny the litigants their right to appeal. If in some way this legislation could be regarded as retrospectively validating the powers of Parramatta City Council, which the Land and Environment Court found to be deficient and which are now to be tested before the Court of Appeal, that might well invalidate the proceedings in the Court of Appeal. That concern is, I believe, shared by the member for Barwon. I simply place those two matters on the record, and indicate that we will not be causing the House to divide on the bill tonight. The Legislative Assembly report speaks for itself. I hope that the matter involving Parramatta City Council Square can be resolved. The amendment clarifying the powers of councils to charge levies seems sensible. In conclusion, I accept the Minister's kind invitation.
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [9.50 p.m.]: The Local Government Amendment Bill 2007 relates to public-private partnerships and the tendering process, but its emphasis is on relationships. No doubt increasingly we will be faced with private-public relationships between councils or elected authorities and private developers, third parties or individuals. My colleague the member for Terrigal spoke about the need for councils to develop partnerships to raise funds for vital or critical infrastructure. There can be no opposition to that. I suspect that the issue will be ongoing and more will arise, given that the country is awash with funds and that vital infrastructure is necessary. We acknowledge the amendments relating to tendering requirements. All councils, and indeed all governing authorities, face matters such as due process, and if the process can be improved, we should endeavour to bring that about through legislation and frameworks.
The term "relationship" as it relates to private-public partnerships is loose and must be constantly monitored. I refer particularly to the relationship between developers and authorities such as councils. Councils are duly elected and charged to act on behalf of the community to oversee services, create further amenities in their community and basically help their communities to grow. As has been said, they are increasingly under pressure. The tendering process and the relationship between developers and councils must be closely scrutinised. The prevention and detection of collusion between councils and developers who may seek an advantage is close to my heart because such behaviour has the potential to undermine our democracy.
Any advantage to a third party as a result of a private-public partnership should not be gained at the expense of private individuals without proper negotiation. As we move increasingly towards private-public partnerships that matter must also be closely monitored. Councils have the ability to compulsorily acquire land for use by the local community under current Acts, for instance, land for parks, railways, roads, galleries, libraries, community meeting places and the like. Councils cannot compulsorily acquire land to benefit a third party in a commercial sense, that is, a developer receiving commercial gain at the expense of a private individual. Councils—indeed all governments—are in a privileged position in terms of planning, rezoning and tendering, and that privilege should not be abused. My learned friend the member for Terrigal spoke earlier about the Parramatta precinct—
Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order: So far the member has not addressed any of the provisions in the bill. I have been prepared to let him continue because he is talking generally about it.
[Interruption]
I know it is after dinner but I would be obliged if members opposite would cease interjecting. The bill has a narrow purview. It does not relate to compulsory acquisition. I did not take a similar point of order on the member for Terrigal because as the member leading for the Opposition in this debate he covered a much wider range, although his comments had absolutely nothing to do with the bill—and I will go into that in some detail 4460 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007 in my reply. The same latitude, however, cannot be extended to the member for Barwon, who is attempting to address the bill and is not doing so. The bill deals with the definition of "public-private partnership" as opposed to "tendering"; it has nothing to do with compulsory acquisition of land in Parramatta or elsewhere.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! In this place members are allowed some flexibility during debate. However, the member for Barwon should take on board the Minister's comments in relation to relevance and relate his remarks more closely to the leave of the bill.
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: I am aware of the tendering process. One of my constituents is a landholder who has been involved in the tendering process. He is concerned about the terminology and the definition of the term "relationship". I take on board the Minister's comments. While the Minister may describe the terms as narrow, terms such as "relationship", "tender" and "private-public partnership" are huge issues that need to be addressed, discussed and debated. I am not being critical; I am saying that we need to be mindful that the issue is growing for local government. Earlier, not in the Parliament but privately, I congratulated the member for Granville, who is a former Lord Mayor of Parramatta, on an excellent project that should be supported not only by his constituency but also by everyone in New South Wales. I congratulated the member on the progress to date.
The tendering process and private-public partnerships need to be scrutinised, given the comments in the media by the general manager of Parramatta City Council and the people from Encon (Australia) Pty Limited who are managing the project. The terms are in the public domain. We need to ensure that the current legislation is upheld and that no benefit is given to third parties by an adjustment to private-public partnerships, whether through the tendering process or amendments. We need to ensure that people's rights are upheld not only in this process but also in the broader context of what acquisition means. I will not say any more about that; suffice it to say that I want to put on the record that the tendering process and the whole issue of private-public partnerships must be scrutinised. I echo the comments of the member for Terrigal about the standing committee's report on public-private partnerships, which we are still awaiting.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [9.58 p.m.], in reply: At the outset I thank the Department of Lands for its input on the proposal to levy charges on strata title and company title lots. I should have done that when I spoke earlier in the debate but I neglected to do so. As to the contributions tonight, I note that the member for Barwon did not address the bill at all. Nothing that he said was in any way related to the legislation before the House. I understand that he is trying to advocate on behalf of constituents in his electorate—that is fine—but maybe he should have used a private member's statement to do so rather than contribute to this debate. Perhaps he needs to understand the difference between pursuing the public interest and private interests.
The member for Terrigal, who led for the Opposition—and, accordingly it was not appropriate that I take a point of order on him—also had nothing to say about the bill. Early in his contribution he commented on the process for rate increases above the cap, and about the alleged generosity of financial assistance grants from the previous Federal Government. I do not concede those points. This is perhaps not the time or the place to debate them at great length, but I cannot let his comments go without challenge.
The two concerns he purported to raise were utterly without substance. His first concern was that because there is an ongoing committee inquiry, the bill should not be completed. With the greatest respect, that is unmitigated drivel. In relation to public private partnerships, the bill is about clarifying the legal position and making absolutely sure that we have, in law, the correct position. The public interest and good governance in this State would be severely compromised if we were to delay doing that until a committee inquiry had concluded. I note also that the member for Terrigal proceeded to blaggard the committee process and attacked committees for not being taken seriously.
With regards this report, the committee is conducting an inquiry on a reference from me. That is why the inquiry was undertaken; I asked the committee to do so by way of a letter. The member for Terrigal might have bothered to find that out before he suggested that the report would be ignored. The committee is inquiring into a number of interesting aspects. To say that the inquiry relates to the substance of the bill is simply wrong and reflects a gross failure on the part of the member for Terrigal to understand what the committee is doing.
The second concern raised by the member for Terrigal is, frankly, even more preposterous. To suggest that the bill in any way affects court proceedings that are currently on foot is ridiculous. Apart from the fact that 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4461 such a suggestion it is utterly offensive, it flies in the face of what the bill is about. Unlike the member for Terrigal I have read the Land and Environment Court decisions to which he referred. For his edification, I point out that the bill proposes changes to sections 55 and 495A of the Local Government Act. I direct his attention to the judgment of Judge Biscoe of the Land and Environment Court, particularly the head note which, as a solicitor at some stage in his career, he should understand.
I point out to the member that the head note refers to sections of the Local Government Act that were dealt with in that judgment, namely sections 7, 8, 21, 22, 23, 24, 186, 187, 188, 189, 355, 400B (i), 400C, 400E, 400F, 400I and 676. Not one of those sections is the subject of the bill. I find it offensive that our time was wasted on the excursion taken by the member for Terrigal. He suggested, quite improperly and outrageously, that somehow this bill might affect litigation that is currently on foot. As I have pointed out, the sections covered by the bill are different. The reality is that the case to which the member for Terrigal referred is about land acquisition. Had he bothered to read the judgment, he would have understood that. The bill has nothing to do with land acquisition; it is about clarifying definitions of public-private partnerships. It is regrettable that the time of the House was wasted by speeches from members of the Opposition that were so utterly irrelevant to the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 14 November 2007.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.04 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) Bill 2007. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, which amends the Anti-Discrimination Act to remove the requirement to report to the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment on equal employment opportunity matters. It changes references in the Act to "persons who have a disability" rather than describing them as "physically handicapped" or "physically impaired" persons. The changes will ensure that references to "physical impairment" are replaced by "disability", and references to "physically handicapped persons" are replaced by "persons who have a disability". The changes are consistent with other parts of the Act and consistent with the dignity of people with a disability who agree that the changes are more appropriate descriptions.
An internal government red tape review was conducted—and I am very interested in red tape at the moment. Stage one of the review held that government agencies should be required to report only once in their annual reports on the equal employment opportunity outcomes, and that they no longer have to report to the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment. That sounds like a sensible idea. However, it is important that government departments employ people with a disability who, generally, do not find it as easy to get a job in private industry. From my experience the Government has acted wisely in this regard.
I have worked with a number of people who are blind or confined to a wheelchair or have a hearing or other disability who have carried out their job efficiently and well. They have fitted in well with their working colleagues and have made people realise that quite often they are happier in their work and their lives than people who do not have obvious disabilities—although sometimes people have a disability in their attitude towards other people. The changes in the bill are minor but important in the sense that they recognise the proper descriptions that should be given to people with disabilities. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. 4462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 November 2007
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping, who led for the Opposition on the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) Bill 2007. As he correctly identified, this is a relatively minor bill. However, it is important in the sense that although it in no way diminishes the responsibilities of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment it reduces substantially red tape. The bill removes the requirement for a matter that is reported in the annual report to be reported separately to the director. That in no way takes away the responsibility of the Director of Equal Opportunity to ensure that equal employment opportunities continue to apply in public employment. The bill also clarifies matters in relation to public discrimination so as to ensure that the terminology is fair and coherent and that in no way implies any discrimination in relation to people with a disability. I thank the member for Epping and I thank the Opposition for its support. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. 2) 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 14 November 2007.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.08 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 2007. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, which repeals certain acts and instruments and provisions of Acts and amends certain other Acts and instruments in various respects and operates for the purpose of effecting statute law revision. The bill is intended to effect minor and non- controversial amendments to various Acts of the New South Wales Parliament.
Schedule 1 amends a number of Acts and regulations, including the Hunter Water Act 1992, to insert a standard provision that allows penalty notices in line with Sydney Water's powers, probably much more appropriate in that case than in the notorious criminal infringement notices, known as CINs, which have attracted great unpopularity for the Government. The bill amends also the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, extending the time for proceedings to be brought against a person for not complying with a notice to provide evidence to the Police Integrity Commission from six months to three years. The explanatory note states:
The rationale for extending the period of commencement of proceedings for an offence under section 26 is that, as with proceedings under section 25 of the Act, commencement of proceedings before the Police Integrity Commission has completed an investigation can prejudice its further conduct of the investigation.
I think there may be another more practical reason. As investigations finish in one particular matter and move on to the next the number of investigators available to complete briefs in fairly minor offences is often none or one. To comply with the inevitable requisitions from the Director of Public Prosecutions, where often for some reason prosecution is a low priority in these organisations and exposure and report are more important, the same emphasis is not placed on putting a brief together. Hence the six-month period might be difficult to comply with for commencing a prosecution. It is not like a parking infringement or speeding infringement where you can put it all together just about on the spot. Statements have to be collated to prove the service of documents and witnesses need to be called for non-attendance. A period of three years has been allowed to get all the components together. I am not being cynical in saying that.
At one stage I worked as counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption and I know those organisations are absolutely chock-a-block full of work and important investigations. They move from one to the other. The Police Integrity Commission, for example, uses police from interstate mainly or Federal police. Under the Act the Police Integrity Commission is not permitted to use New South Wales police. 27 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4463
So there is a turnover of people who go back to their forces having been on secondment rather than long permanent appointment. Sometimes these types of matters can get lost in the rush compared with some of the more important prosecutions for specific corruption offences or false swearing. I think it is a sensible approach to extend the time limit for the commencement of prosecutions because people who fail to comply with notices do cause interference with investigations and should be subject to penalty.
There are various other matters that I am sure the member for Camden is conscious of. The Board of Tick Control is to be abolished. The Growth Centres Development Corporation will be amended to enable members of the development corporation to participate in meetings of the corporation by telephone or other means of electronic communication—that brings it into the twenty-first century. There are to be other small but important technical amendments to the Succession Act to achieve greater consistency of succession laws in Australia. I am sure the member for Camden will be very happy about those changes. There are also some amendments consequential on the Rural Fire Service's planning for bushfire protection and updating references. There are in fact many hundreds of pieces of legislation to be amended in a minor way by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No.2). The Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.13 p.m.], in reply: I once again thank the Opposition for its support of this legislation. As indicated by the member for Epping, leading on behalf the Opposition, bills of this type are introduced into almost every session of Parliament. The aim is to tidy up some of the existing statutes which have been accruing over many years in some cases and which require refinement. There is nothing of major importance here otherwise they would have been dealt with by way of individual legislation. On this occasion it is appropriate in a summary context to put these miscellaneous items together and to wrap them up in this particular session. This bill will do that.
The Government indicates to the Opposition, as we have on previous occasions, that if there is any particular matter of concern to it, or to anyone else for that matter, which cannot be resolved and which is likely to delay the passage of the bill the Government would be prepared to consider withdrawing that matter from the bill. This bill is aimed purely to do essential miscellaneous legal housekeeping as far as statute laws are concerned. It is appropriate to be done in this way and probably appropriate to be done at this particular hour as well. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
CONSUMER CLAIMS AMENDMENT BILL 2007.
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
The House adjourned at 10.16 p.m. until Wednesday 28 November 2007 at 10.00 a.m. ______