3214
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 23 June 2011
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY
Election of Steven James Robert Whan
The PRESIDENT: At a joint sitting held on 20 June 2011, Steven James Robert Whan was elected to fill the vacancy in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Anthony Bernard Kelly.
PLEDGE OF LOYALTY
The Hon. Steven James Robert Whan took and subscribed the pledge of loyalty and signed the roll.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business item No. 24 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
CANCER COUNCIL NEW SOUTH WALES
Motion by the Hon. Marie Ficarra agreed to:
1. That this House notes that the Cancer Council NSW:
(a) invested $750,000 in patient accommodation services for Lismore and Orange in 2009-2010, adding to its existing support for accommodation facilities in Wagga Wagga, Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie and Penrith,
(b) invested $17 million in 2010-2011 in cancer research, adding to its five year total of $63 million between 2005 and 2010,
(c) introduced New South Wales' SunSmart Early Childhood program, from which 97,500 children now benefit from all five forms of sun protection while in childcare,
(d) recruited almost 33,000 people into research studies, providing insights into the causes and patterns of cancer in New South Wales,
(e) developed an award winning sun protection campaign for youth, SunSound, where a short catchy jingle is played at regular intervals at beaches and other outdoor venues, prompting young people to protect themselves from the sun,
(f) maintained its five year program, Tackling Tobacco, addressing the unacceptably high smoking rates in disadvantaged populations, through which the Cancer Council NSW distributed 20 grants over the past four years to community service organisations to help them implement initiatives to support their clients to quit smoking,
(g) initiated a pilot program in the Hunter to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption in families of young children and trained local community facilitators to run community sessions on boosting fruit and vegetables in families on a budget,
(h) established a Legal and Financial Planning Referral Service to connect cancer patients in need of legal and financial advice with pro bono firms,
23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3215
(i) together with the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council, developed an easy-to-read information booklet for Aboriginal people affected by cancer which gives voice to the experiences of Aboriginal people and uses a story telling format to reflect the oral tradition of Aboriginal communities, and
(j) maintained its Cancer Council Helpline providing cancer information and psychosocial support to cancer patients and carers, acting as a referral point for those who need counselling, practical support, financial assistance, peer support or other services.
2. That this House:
(a) recognises that the Biggest Morning Tea campaign takes place in May, and thanks all those who have contributed, particularly those that attended the New South Wales Parliament's High Tea on 25 May 2011, and
(b) congratulates the Cancer Council NSW CEO, Dr Andrew Penman AM, Dr Anita Tang and their staff for their excellent work.
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES
Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) approximately one year ago, a fast food restaurant costing $2.5 million was built in Hunter Street, Newcastle West, over one of the most significant Aboriginal heritage sites in New South Wales,
(b) the excavation report for this site was not released until one month ago, almost a year after the restaurant was built, thus making its assessment of the heritage impact of the development redundant,
(c) the excavation report found the site to be of "high to exceptional cultural and scientific significance" and should have been available before the restaurant was built so as to justify retention of the site as a State significant site of Aboriginal cultural heritage,
(d) the site contained a significant number of artefacts, including ancient Aboriginal stone tools with unique stonework and campsite remains, which are over 6,000 years old, evidence of some of the earliest human settlement in the Newcastle area,
(e) the site also included a large array of colonial era artefacts,
(f) under the previous Government Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits, which effectively are permits to destroy Aboriginal heritage sites, were given at the rate of approximately five per week,
(g) members of the local Awabakal people have stated that the final excavation report "highlighted the lack of rigour in the State Government's assessment of Aboriginal heritage", and
(h) no acceptable plan has been made for the retention and display of these unique artefacts in the local region.
2. That this House:
(a) recognises the irreplaceable nature of this State's Aboriginal heritage and the value of Aboriginal artefacts,
(b) acknowledges the tragic loss of Aboriginal heritage that this development has created, and
(c) calls on the Government to review the failings in the current Aboriginal heritage protection regime and consider measures to ensure that a similar tragedy does not occur in the future.
GREEN BANS FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) green bans are one of the uniquely Australian contributions to the international workers' movement,
(b) the first green ban was imposed at Hunters Hill where the Building Workers' Industrial Union helped save one of the last remaining areas of bushland on the Parramatta River which was threatened by development,
(c) green bans have been instrumental in saving diverse areas of heritage, including in Glebe, The Rocks, Woolloomooloo and Newcastle East End,
(d) the green ban movement has been responsible for the modification of plans that would have adverse heritage and environmental outcomes for Centennial Park, where McDonalds wanted to build a fast food outlet, the refurbishment and extension of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and the historical Museum of Contemporary Art, and
(e) recent green bans have included action to prevent the sell-off of foreshore land at Pyrmont Point for development, and the return to community ownership of the Seaforth TAFE site.
3216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
2. That this House:
(a) recognises the important contribution the green ban movement has made over 40 years to the preservation of the physical and natural history and culture of this State, and
(b) acknowledges the significance of 16 June 2011 as the fortieth anniversary of the green ban movement in Australia.
KFC RESTAURANT, NEWCASTLE
Production of Documents: Order
Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Heritage and the Minister for the Environment, or the Department of Premier and Cabinet, relating to the development of the KFC restaurant at 227-231 Hunter Street, Newcastle, including the former Palais site, and any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business item No. 116 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
TRIBUTE TO BOB FENWICK
Motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) on 5 January 2011, Mr Bob Fenwick, a highly experienced and dedicated psychiatric nurse, was murdered by a patient whilst coming to the defence of a colleague who was being attacked at Bloomfield Hospital, Orange.
(b) Mr Fenwick was a passionate advocate for his patients and consistently supported his colleagues, particularly junior mental health nurses, and
(c) the Department of Health has established the Bob Fenwick Memorial Mentoring Program which will fund up to 20 individuals to a total of $80,000 to encourage mental health nurses to take on a mentoring role.
2. That this House expresses sympathy to the family, colleagues and friends, fellow members of the NSW Nurses Association and patients of Mr Bob Fenwick on the loss of such a highly respected psychiatric nurse.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business item No. 143 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
Private Members' Business item No. 144 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
SYRIA
Motion moved by Dr John Kaye agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) the Syrian people are exercising their fundamental human right to protest against the ruling regime and its repression of civil society,
(b) the regime of President Bashar al-Asad has responded with unconscionable savagery in an attempt to suppress the nation's democracy movement,
23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3217
(c) since March 2011, more than 1,200 people have been killed by forces supporting the regime and thousands more have been detained for exercising their right to protest,
(d) according to eyewitnesses and images broadcast by major networks, many detained people have been subjected to torture and abuse,
(e) more than 17 people are known to have died under torture including at least two children aged less than 14, whose mutilated bodies were recovered with burns on their skin, teeth pulled out, broken necks and limbs and their genitals removed, and
(f) the regime has callously violated the civil and human rights of its citizens, including:
(i) using family members as hostages to apply pressure on individuals in hiding, including in some cases threatening female family members with rape,
(ii) deliberately creating a humanitarian crisis in a number of cities and towns using tanks, military helicopters and security agents, including Iranian revolutionary guards as snipers and internet experts to round up the bloggers who were informing the world of the atrocities,
(ii) using its military and security forces to kill the regime's own soldiers who refuse to fire on peaceful demonstrators,
(iv) the use of systematic rape to inflict punishment on towns and villages participating in freedom demonstrations, including the rape of women in front of their children and husbands,
(v) the burning of the harvest, killing animals and looting shops and houses,
(vi) the banning of international media and humanitarian missions from entry to the country.
2. That this House strongly condemns the violence and acts of terror perpetrated against the people of Syria and calls on the Syrian regime to immediately respect civil and human rights of its citizens and desist in suppressing dissent with violence and mass detention.
3. That this House calls on the international community to act without delay to:
(a) increase pressure on the Syrian regime to stop the violence against their own citizens and instead enter into genuine negotiations with the opposition for the peaceful transition to democracy,
(b) create and enforce safe zones for refugees fleeing the violence and ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered to refugees in those zones and other towns under siege,
(c) apply effective and meaningful sanctions on the regime, including strong diplomatic, financial and legal actions proportional to the crimes committed, and indictments to the international court of those responsible for crimes against humanity,
(d) disrupt the Syrian Government's satellite channels unless the regime provides the international media and humanitarian missions free access to the Syrian people, and
(e) urge the Russian and Chinese Governments to fulfil their international obligations to join in applying maximum pressure on the regime and to not abuse their veto powers to frustrate or delay relief for the Syrian people.
PETITIONS
Battery Cage Egg Production
Petition requesting the House to support a moratorium on the construction of new battery cages for egg production, phase out battery cages and demand that the Government lobby the national regulator, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, to ban the sale of battery cage eggs in Australia, received from Dr John Kaye.
Department of Education and Communities Confucius Institute
Petition requesting that the House act to remove Confucius classrooms from schools, which will not allow discussion of sensitive topics such as Tibet, Taiwan, Falun Gong or the Tiananmen Square massacre, replace them with an Australian-run organisation, and ensure that the curriculum of Chinese language or culture courses in schools are free from Chinese Government censorship, received from Dr John Kaye. 3218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
IRREGULAR PETITION
Leave granted for the suspension of standing orders to allow Dr John Kaye to present an irregular petition.
Unflued Gas Heaters
Petition calling on the Government to announce a program immediately to replace all unflued gas heaters in public schools within no more than two years, received from Dr John Kaye.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business items Nos 17 and 29 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Dr John Kaye.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES
Membership
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Opposition Whip on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition the following changes in membership of General Purpose Standing Committees:
General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1
The Hon. Walt Secord in place of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal.
General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3
The Hon. Penny Sharpe in place of the Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Mick Veitch in place of the Hon. Amanda Fazio.
General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4
The Hon. Adam Searle in place of the Hon. Penny Sharpe.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.53 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 6 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011, be called on forthwith.
Question—That standing and sessional orders be suspended—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 19
Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Mitchell Mr Borsak Mr Green Reverend Nile Mr Brown Mr Khan Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3219
Noes, 16
Ms Barham Mr Moselmane Ms Westwood Mr Buckingham Mr Primrose Mr Whan Ms Cotsis Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Searle Tellers, Ms Faehrmann Mr Shoebridge Ms Fazio Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Mr Secord
Pairs
Mr Ajaka Mr Foley Mr Gallacher Ms Sharpe Mr Pearce Ms Voltz
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:
That Private Members Business order of the day item No. 6 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
MARINE PARKS AMENDMENT (MORATORIUM) BILL 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 6 May 2011.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.01 a.m.]: Mr President—
Dr John Kaye: Here we go with a delivery speech; it is a sealed deal.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Before addressing the proposals in the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011 I acknowledge the interjection of Chicken Little—Dr John Kaye. I state at the outset that no-one would be surprised at my speaking in debate on this legislation given that as shadow Minister I travelled throughout New South Wales and indicated my support for a moratorium. Dr John Kaye is trying in vain to push his rubbish but he will not succeed in this case as my track record is true blue.
The bill proposes that there be no declaration of a marine park for the next five years. This proposed five-year moratorium will apply not just to new marine parks but also to extending sanctuary zones within existing marine parks. The aim of the Marine Parks Act 1997 is to conserve marine biological diversity and marine habitats through a comprehensive system of marine parks. The Act also seeks to maintain ecological processes in marine parks. Significantly, the Act further seeks to provide for the ecologically sustainable use of fish, for both commercial and recreational fishing. And the Act seeks, through appropriate zoning, for these aims to be achieved while allowing for the community to enjoy marine parks.
This Government has already made its policy intentions clear regarding zoning in marine parks. These intentions are set out in the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition recreational fishing policy. I indicated a moment ago that I was shadow Minister at that time. We made it clear that, on being elected to government, we would immediately commission an independent scientific audit of zoning in marine parks. The Government has concerns about marine park management placing too much focus on fisheries issues. Some very real threats to marine biodiversity and ecosystems may be from pollution, inappropriate coastal development and introduced species and diseases. The Government has therefore committed to a commonsense marine parks policy. The policy aims for the right balance between protecting the marine environment and allowing appropriate access to fishing areas. The Government agrees that a moratorium is necessary. However, the duration of the moratorium should fit the circumstances, and it would be counterproductive to provide only for a moratorium with a set term. 3220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: That is known because of the numbers in the upper House.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham had listened to this debate he would have gained an insight into what it is all about. The Greens have a habit of not listening to debate on commonsense issues. They deliver to us a wall of sound but they do not listen. This legislation, which is sensible science, will deliver a better environmental outcome. Rather than addressing his prejudice, if the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham listened to what the Government is doing he would discover that it is doing the right thing.
Mr David Shoebridge: If it is science that you do not like, you call it junk science. This is a Luddite government.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Deputy Leader of the Government has the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Once the purpose of the moratorium has been achieved the Government must be able to implement decisions in a timely manner. Waiting for five years might not allow for an appropriate and timely response following completion of the independent scientific audit. The Government therefore proposes an amendment to the bill. I propose that "moratorium period" be defined in the Act as either five years from the commencement of the amendment bill or a shorter period linked to the completion of the audit, whichever occurs sooner.
The Ministers responsible for marine parks will recommend to the Governor the appropriate date for the expiry of the moratorium period relating to the independent scientific audit. Sensibly, they can do that only after they have considered the report of the scientific audit and its recommendations, and they have provided a written response to the report that is publicly available. On receiving a recommendation from the Ministers, the Governor may then make an order ending the moratorium period. This is a practical, responsive and flexible approach. In simple terms, we are putting in place a proper scientific audit.
The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: You do not listen to the science. This is what you call voodoo science, Duncan—voodoo science.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The problem is that there are others in this House who do not listen. They just want to mouth platitudes. When this scientific audit reports—
Mr David Shoebridge: But it does move, Duncan.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask Mr David Shoebridge, who really is a frustrating man, to listen for just a moment.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Once this scientific audit has been completed and we have received its report recommendations will be made that might include an increase in zoning areas and/or a decrease in particular areas. Whilst we are supportive of a moratorium, as it was our policy, the zoning details within the ambit of the bill preclude us from making those changes following the completion of the audit. I spoke to the proponents of the bill and indicated that we would support the bill subject to changes that would allow for the outcomes of the audit. This is proper protection of the environment and it is proper science; it is not about the mouthing of platitudes.
Sadly, The Greens in this Chamber choose only to mouth platitudes rather than to protect the environment. This independent scientific audit is necessary to ensure that future decisions we make relating to marine parks are evidence based and rely on the best possible information. To provide certainty we will propose that the independent scientific audit be included in the legislation. The audit will use scientific information as the basis for sound, evidence-based recommendations for marine parks. The audit, to be overseen by an independent and highly qualified panel, will provide that sound scientific basis for these decisions. It makes sense to base these decisions on good scientific advice and effective consultation with all stakeholders. It is anticipated that the audit will be completed by 31 December 2011.
Related to the outcomes of the audit is another issue that we wish to address. Currently the bill calls for a prohibition on classifying an area in a marine park as a sanctuary zone. It also calls for a prohibition on 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3221
increasing the area of a sanctuary zone for the term of the five-year moratorium. The Government agrees that changes should not be made to zoning during the moratorium period and it therefore proposes to move an amendment that will strengthen the prohibition on changing sanctuary zones during the moratorium period.
The Hon. Luke Foley: You already changed sanctuary zones last month.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: One of the reasons we need to do this is to revisit those sanctuary zones. When we receive the report further changes may or may not be made. Members opposite are trying to be smart but they do not understand what this legislation is all about. The definition of "new sanctuary zone" will include zones with similar functions to sanctuary zones, regardless of their names. The Government will also move an amendment to prohibit conducting or continuing reviews of zoning plans within the moratorium period. This is sensible otherwise the Government would be required to commence a separate review of the zoning plans before having an opportunity to respond to the audit.
The Government wants to ensure that these reviews are conducted with the best possible information available to them. A five-year blanket moratorium would delay the implementation of the outcomes of the audit. We do not know what the recommendations will be. It is possible that the audit may make findings that some areas could safely be opened to fishing. Conversely, there may be a need to increase protection in some areas. It may also be appropriate in some instances to consolidate some of the small sanctuary zones to help improve voluntary compliance and remove confusion. In all, we need to be able to consider the recommendations of the audit and implement our proposed response to such an audit in a timely manner rather than waiting for five years to do so. The amendments that will be moved by the Government are a responsible approach to conservation and biodiversity and to responsible fishing. Most importantly, they are a responsible approach to marine parks on behalf of the community of New South Wales.
The Government supports this good piece of legislation which, as I indicated earlier, reflects the stance I took leading into the election. The bill will be more effective and comprehensive after the implementation of the Government's proposed amendments. Those amendments will allow for the incorporation of a proper scientific survey and the review of the regulations on Solitary Island, Jervis Bay and Fish Rock. The results of that review must be fed back into the system. While this legislation is well intended and it reflects the Government's view, it would have been tough to put those things in place, which is why the Government proposed those changes. Those changes will honour the commitment that this Government made to the people of New South that it would analyse these areas to establish whether they were in the right location and that they were working properly. Any areas that are found to be in need of protection will be included. However, it was never the intention of the Government to create additional marine parks. I will move those amendments in Committee.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [10.14 a.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition in debate on the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011, a private member's bill that was introduced by the Hon. Robert Brown. The object of this bill is to impose a moratorium on the declaration of additional marine parks or the expansion of sanctuary zones within existing marine parks. I indicate at the outset that the Opposition opposes the bill. The former Labor Government did not support the bill and nor will the current Opposition. The principal objectives of the Marine Parks Act 1997 are the protection of marine biodiversity, ecological processes and marine habitats, while at the same time allowing recreational and commercial activities within marine parks that do not violate those primary objectives—a plainly stated aim.
All we had from the Hon. Duncan Gay in his time as shadow Minister was a campaign of lies, distortions and scaremongering in an attempt by him to portray The Nationals as the heroes of the hour, saving fish for recreational and commercial fishing. In truth, the ideas propagated by the Hon. Duncan Gay would achieve the opposite. Marine parks allow for commercial and recreational fishing in the majority of their waters, while sanctuary areas protect key habitats. Fishing is permitted in over 93 per cent of the marine jurisdiction of New South Wales and on average in 80 per cent of marine park waters in New South Wales. Marine parks and sanctuaries help to restore and replenish fish stocks, boost the number, size and breed potential of fish, and strengthen the ability of the marine environment to respond to human pressures such as climate change.
This private member's bill, sponsored by members of the Shooters and Fishers Party, has a long history. Members of that party have a clear policy on these matters. They advocated that policy in the term of the last Labor Government and in the term of this incoming Coalition Government. I do not criticise them for that. Labor respectfully disagrees with the policy of the Shooters and Fishers Party in this area. My criticism is of the O'Farrell Government. I believe the elevation of this matter in today's Notice Paper is clearly the result of a deal 3222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
between the O'Farrell Government and the Shooters and Fishers Party that included the passage of the Government's punitive industrial relations laws applying to New South Wales public servants a couple of weeks ago.
Mr O'Farrell promised higher standards of governance. Prior to the election he put his hand on his heart and repeatedly stated that he would not do deals with the minor parties in this Chamber. But what do we see? On the last day of the first session of the Fifty-fifth Parliament the deal has come in. Two weeks ago the rights of hundreds of thousands of public servants in this State to access an independent industrial tribunal was taken away by a punitive piece of legislation. At each and every step the Shooters and Fishers Party supported the Government in the passage of the legislation, despite the arguments of the Opposition and trade union movement in this State. A couple of weeks later a matter that was not at the top of the list of private members' business was elevated, without notice, to be passed through this Chamber today. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck one can only conclude—
Mr David Shoebridge: That they are going to shoot it.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: —that it is a duck. It is obvious to all who care to look that the vows of the Premier that he would not do deals with minor parties in this Chamber was an outright lie. That is why this matter is before us today. It has been elevated on the Notice Paper because Barry O'Farrell has done a deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party to trash the marine environment in New South Wales. Where is the environment Minister on this issue? A former member of this House, she now sits in the other place. The Hon. Robyn Parker has a very heavy responsibility as the environment Minister of New South Wales to stand up for the State's environment. She is nowhere to be seen.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack tried to stand up for the environment of this State and she copped a bullet for it. She was sacked by Barry O'Farrell in a breach of his election promise to keep all his shadow Ministers in his Cabinet when he came into office. Less than two weeks prior to the election the Hon. Robert Brown, in a statement, expressed no confidence in the Hon. Catherine Cusack in the most explicit terms. Once again, I make no criticism of the honourable member for that. The Shooters and Fishers Party has been upfront and clear at all times about its policy agenda. When it has had arguments with the major parties or with particular portfolio holders in the major parties it has said so robustly, as is their right.
My criticism is of the Premier, who said he would appoint all the shadow Ministers to the Cabinet. As soon as the Hon. Robert Brown on behalf of the Shooters and Fishers Party said, "We don't want a bar of Catherine Cusack", she copped it. She was dropped from Cabinet. On the very first day of the O'Farrell Government we saw the abolition of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. Now there is no department to advocate for the environment. We have a lame duck environment Minister who knows if she stands up for the environment she will cop what the Hon. Catherine Cusack copped. We have an environment Minister who knows that her job is to do anything other than stand up for the environment in New South Wales.
We saw the reversal of restrictions in the Coffs Harbour area at Fish Rock which were designed to protect a critically endangered species. The grey nurse shark is critically endangered: the scientific evidence is there. Yet in the face of that scientific evidence the Government moved to remove the protection for that critically endangered species. On the issue of sanctuary zones at Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks, the Government moved in the other place, with its weight of numbers, to disallow the regulation that put in place the new zoning plans for those two marine parks. The Minister for Roads and Ports spoke earlier about the Liberal and Nationals election policy in this area. In that election policy there is not a word about the issue of the zoning plans at the Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are misleading the House. It was absolutely upfront in our policy. It was my policy. You wouldn't know.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I am happy to quote from the policy.
Mr David Shoebridge: Table it.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I am happy to quote from or table the policy. The policy is entitled "NSW Liberals and Nationals Recreational Fishing Policy: Restoring the Balance". The hope that the Coalition held out in its policy was for an expansion of the habitat protection zones within existing marine parks. Its policy states:
To achieve this balance the NSW Liberals & Nationals will:
• Subject to the results of the scientific independent audit; expand the current Habitat Protection Zones within existing marine parks.
23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3223
It also states:
To ensure future Marine Park policy is guided by evidence in government we will:
• Immediately commission an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of existing zoning arrangements in meeting domestic and international commitments to the conservation of marine biodiversity.
Where in that document is there a statement that before the audit—which the policy states is an immediate audit—they will knock over the zoning plans, reverse them, and then have the audit? Where in that document does it state that they will deliver the outcome before they have the inquiry? It is not mentioned anywhere in that policy document. As part of the consultation process on the draft zoning plan for the Solitary Islands Marine Park 6,519 submissions were received and 42 stakeholder meetings and community information days were held. The Minister for Roads and Ports did not tell the House that improved access for recreational anglers and spearfishers was granted at the end of that process. Improved access was granted at key sites, including Bare Bluff and South West Solitary Island, or Groper Islet, all year round, as well as an extra 500 metres at Minnie Water Back Beach and a section of reef at Northwest Rock.
What was the key move in the zoning plan that led the Government to move disallowance of government regulation? It involved the commercial fishing industry and the prawn trawling industry. I do not blame the Hon. Robert Brown for this; I blame The Nationals. It was about looking after its mates in the commercial prawn trawling industry. It was not about looking after recreational anglers, because the extensive consultation process had resulted in a zoning plan that gave recreational anglers around Coffs Harbour a better deal. Dr Melanie Bishop, President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Marine Scientists Association, has written to the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson, and given her a huge serve for what the Government did. Dr Bishop made the point in her correspondence that a previous sanctuary zone was reopened in the Jervis Bay Marine Park as a result of the zoning plan.
One of the moves in the Jervis Bay Marine Park was that commercial trawling no longer occurred at Wreck Bay or Crookhaven Bight and lift-netting activities were prohibited in Jervis Bay. The zoning plans that the Government disallowed last month, without a word of advance warning prior to doing so in the other place, was off the back of extensive community consultation. Almost 10,000 submissions were made across the two marine parks. Scores of stakeholder meetings and community information days were held. The zoning plans at Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands looked after recreational fishers and resulted in improved access for recreational anglers in many areas. What The Nationals objected to and why the Government took the step, without any hint of warning prior to overturning the regulation, was the banning of prawn trawling in large parts of the Solitary Islands Marine Park. The Government said not a word prior to the election that before its "immediate scientific audit" it would deliver a result by overturning the zoning plans that had been the subject of two years of consultation, thousands of submissions, and scores of public meetings—not a word.
The passage of the bill through this House today is most obviously the result of a dirty deal by a Government that is prepared to trash the environment of New South Wales in order to secure passage of repugnant government legislation in other policy areas, such as a bill that trashes the rights of our hardworking public servants and removes a century of access by hundreds of thousands of workers to an independent industrial commission. That is what this bill is about. The environment Minister has gone missing in action. We know for sure that the environment Minister of this State will not stand up for the New South Wales environment for one very good reason—if she does, The Nationals hit squad will come in and she will get the same treatment as the Hon. Catherine Cusack.
The environment Minister of this State knows very well that she is forbidden to advocate for the environment for the life of the O'Farrell Government. This Government is prepared to wage war on environmental protection in New South Wales. We saw the execution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack in breach of the Premier's election commitment to appoint all his shadow Cabinet to his Cabinet in government. We have seen the abolition of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. We have seen the removal of the restrictions designed to protect a critically endangered species, the grey nurse shark. We have seen the overturning of the zoning plans for the Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay marine parks that were the result of extensive consultation and a very real attempt to balance conservation and the interests of recreational fishers in this State.
We have seen war waged on renewable energy. We have seen the 110,000 households in New South Wales who did the right thing and, at the invitation of government, invested in a clean energy future in solar disparaged as a privileged minority by this Government. When the Government puts out its glossy 100 Day 3224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
Action Plan pamphlet in 10 days time it should also release a pamphlet on its environmental record. It should put out a pamphlet detailing its long and growing list of crimes against the environment in this State and make it clear to the people of New South Wales that this Government will sacrifice the environment every time in order to get the conservative crossbenches in this place to pass harsh, punitive government legislation that is designed to beat hardworking public servants in this State with a stick. That is what this Government is about. We have seen this bill elevated up the batting list today so that the Shooters and Fishers Party, which has always been very clear about its policy in this area, can be rewarded by the O'Farrell Government for voting for the passage of the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011. Labor opposed this legislation when in government. We certainly oppose it in opposition. [Time expired.]
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [10.34 a.m.]: I am struggling to fit my papers on the table because I have a lot of information about the science that supports sanctuary zones. I speak today quite unexpectedly— as I am sure all members other than those on the other side of the House will—on the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011 introduced by the Hon. Robert Brown. All week we have been told in government meetings and briefings that we would be debating the firearms legislation today. So it is a surprise to us, and I believe it is very unethical parliamentary behaviour, to be landed with this bill without any notice whatsoever. Clearly, it is an indication of what is to come. I note that the Hon. Scot MacDonald nods his head in agreement.
I have only 20 minutes to speak on this bill, and that is a pity given how much there is to say about what it represents. I begin by detailing what the Government has already done in its few months in office. Within its first 100 days the Government launched a big attack on marine science in New South Wales. The Government revoked fishing closures and recent zoning plans, and in so doing damaged the reputation of marine science in New South Wales and discredited the fine work of many marine scientists in this State. Fish Rock and Green Island were closed recently. The Government revoked the fishing closures that were put in place after many years of requests from conservationists, marine scientists and government reports to close these areas to fishing in order to protect the critically endangered grey nurse shark and black cod, which is now found around Fish Rock.
The Government, particularly the Hon. Duncan Gay, is well aware just how endangered the grey nurse shark is. Even if the grey nurse shark population numbers 1,500—which is what the Government discussion paper claims—anything below 5,000 for a species is way below its replacement rate. Grey nurse sharks will become extinct if we do not get their numbers above 5,000. Every single death of a grey nurse shark is very significant. I continually receive emails about how the grey nurse shark is critically endangered both federally and at State level and stating that sharks are often seen with hooks embedded in their mouths and in their bodies. According to the information that the Government has before it, there is evidence to suggest that when grey nurse sharks have hooks embedded in their mouths or their stomachs they die a slow death from starvation. Divers at South West Rocks tell me it is some time since they have seen a grey nurse shark without a hook embedded in it.
The Hon. Robert Borsak: Rubbish.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: It is not rubbish; it is what the divers—
The Hon. Trevor Khan: I dive there, Cate.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I would like to see from the Hon. Trevor Khan a photograph of grey nurse sharks in the area. The Government also recently revoked the very recent gains—although minor— achieved by the conservation movement, which was not satisfied with the zoning changes for the Solitary Islands Marine Park and Jervis Bay Marine Park. However, we recognised that it was a compromise and that it followed years of consultation. In my previous role as Executive Director of the Nature Conservation Council I attended a consultation meeting on the Solitary Islands Marine Park in about 2009. The Solitary Islands Marine Park officers and the secretariat undertook extensive consultation about both those marine parks. There were 285 community information days dealing with Solitary Islands Marine Park and the Jervis Bay Marine Park—Zoning Plan Review.
Meetings were also held with the Huskisson Chamber of Commerce, the Jervis Bay Tourism Association, commercial fishers at Greenwell Point, Huskisson and Lake Illawarra, Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council, recreational fishers in Callala Bay, Huskisson and Nowra, and spearfishers, free divers, sailors and scuba divers. As the Hon. Luke Foley said, thousands of submissions were received. Of course, the recreational fishers, commercial fishers and conservationists were also consulted. It was an extensive 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3225
consultation process. The Government's proposed amendment provides that the moratorium be in place until the independent audit has been completed and a decision has been made. Goodness knows how long that will take. It would appear from the Government's attitude to the independent audit that it believes the scientific research undertaken on marine parks to date is not sufficient.
The Hon. Robert Brown: The Government's own independent review said as much.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Which independent review?
The Hon. Robert Brown: The old Government, the Labor Government.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: For more than a decade marine scientists from across the world have been meeting and talking about the decline in the state of our oceans, the collapse of our fish stocks and the need to protect some ocean areas so that fish can breed and stocks can recover. It goes without saying that protecting some areas of our oceans from fishing is a good thing. Most of the young children in the public gallery would recognise that doing so will allow fish stocks in those areas to regenerate.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: I point out that the honourable member is addressing the gallery, which is disorderly.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! People in the public gallery will not interrupt the proceedings of the House
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I apologise. I am aware that I am not supposed to engage with people in the public gallery. The Hon. Robert Brown chaired and my colleague Ian Cohen was a member of the committee that inquired into recreational fishing. A document tabled by Professor Booth during the committee's hearings and referenced in the final report from the Australian Marine Science Association impressed upon the committee the volume of scientific literature concerning the efficacy of marine parks. Professor Booth provided the committee with a bibliography of 1,098 articles produced around the world and locally about marine parks. That is 1,098 peer-reviewed articles proving the benefits of marine parks and sanctuary zones.
I challenge members opposite to say that having some areas of the ocean off limits to fishing is not good for fish stock recovery, fish size and fish abundance. I challenge members opposite to provide evidence to the contrary or to say that that is not reasonable. That is what we are talking about. I could provide members with hundreds of other similarly peer-reviewed articles from both Australia and New Zealand. Recently scientists met at an international workshop to talk about the impending disaster facing fish stocks. We will confront unprecedented levels of extinction if we do not address not only depletion of fish stocks but also climate change. The three-day workshop involved 26 expert researchers in marine science from six countries. They are prophesying a perfect storm in terms of the collapse of fish stocks in our oceans.
The Hon. Robert Brown: It's a bit like global warming.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Yes, it is just like global warming. I do not know whether I can identify anyone on the Government and cross benches who believes that climate change is real.
The Hon. Rick Colless: I know it exists.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I will rephrase that: I do not think anyone opposite agrees that anthropogenic global warming is real. A similar attack on science is also occurring in the marine science field. My colleague Dr John Kaye gave notice of a motion dealing with the scientists' annual meeting with Commonwealth parliamentarians at which they felt compelled to address the concept of respect for science because they are being attacked so often by the likes of members opposite, who are discrediting scientists because they are fearful of what it means if the science is correct.
The Hon. Rick Colless: You should read both sides of the science.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I have. The scales are slightly unbalanced here, because we are talking about three crackpots and approximately 10,000 climate and marine scientists. Who do members listen to when they want to know about marine science? Do they listen to Ecofishers, which is an extreme element of the recreational fishing lobby? Are members getting advice from— 3226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
The Hon. Robert Brown: Name them. Who are they?
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Professor Ian Plimer is one. I am also sure that members opposite will be attending lectures given by Lord Monckton when he visits Australia next month. It is a good thing that Parliament will not be sitting because they will be able to follow their bug-eyed hero around the country.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: I am finding it very difficult to hear the honourable member's important contribution.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I was about to refer to voodoo science and voodoo environmentalism. The Hon. Duncan Gay says that the science behind marine parks is "voodoo science". That is what we are hearing from Government members. Thousands of scientists—that is, people who have dedicated their lives to researching the marine environment—have counted the remaining fish stocks. I have a document entitled "Troubled Waters: A call for action" signed by thousands of marine scientists. It calls upon the world's citizens and governments to recognise that the living sea is in trouble and to take decisive action. It points out that we must act quickly to stop further severe irreversible damage to the sea's biological diversity and integrity. It also states that life in the world's estuaries, coastal waters, enclosed seas and oceans is increasingly threatened by over-exploitation of species, physical alteration of ecosystems, pollution, introduction of alien species and global atmospheric climate change.
Scientists have documented the extinction of marine species, the disappearance of ecosystems and the loss of resources worth billions of dollars. Members should think about what that means. It would be interesting to hear what the Government is doing to protect fish stocks. Perhaps the Government will be breeding fish somewhere and releasing them into the ocean—who knows? It will be interesting to see what it plans to do to protect fish stocks. I am not sure; I have not heard or seen anything. All I heard from the Coalition prior to the election was constant discrediting of marine science, constant discrediting of good people. If I were a marine scientist who had been working for the Government for the past 20 years—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House. The former Opposition did not discredit marine scientists; we discredited the science of the former Government, which is very different.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister will resume his seat.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: By declaring marine science "voodoo science" the honourable member is discrediting the science.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I declared the science on marine parks voodoo science.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: What about the science that these marine parks are based on? That science is exactly the research I just mentioned.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, it is not.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Yes. Marine scientists base their work on global marine science and scientific research conducted in New South Wales and Australia. Every marine park's website has literature supporting the science behind sanctuary zones and documents supporting marine parks. The Marine Parks Authority secretariat certainly does. I obtained from the secretariat a document entitled "More Than Fishy Business: A Literature Review on the Benefits of Marine Parks" by Dr Melissa Nursey-Bray from the University of Adelaide. I also refer honourable members to my adjournment speech last Friday. In that five-minute speech I tried to get as much evidence and science as possible onto the record—because there is so much science. I note that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a letter from, and statements by, the current head of the Australian Marine Sciences Association, Dr Melanie Bishop, who expressed her disappointment at the Government's recent revocations. In October 2006 the president of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Marine Sciences Association, Dr Jane Williamson, wrote to the Hon. Duncan Gay. She was very disappointed about comments that he made on Radio 2SM on 9 October 2006, when he said:
There is no science behind this [marine parks] … It's not going to help the fish and it's not going to help the communities.
23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3227
The Australian Marine Sciences Association stated:
We strongly dispute this statement.
The New South Wales branch of the Australian Marine Sciences Association (AMSA) is a professional organisation comprising over 150 marine scientists.
I assure members that some of those 150 marine scientists work for government. Clearly, they are public servants. Many marine scientists work in the current government, whether for the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Office of Environment and Heritage, the Marine Parks Authority secretariat or for marine parks. The association went on to say:
Current levels of fishing are having a detrimental impact on New South Wales fish stocks and their sustainability for future generations.
Let us talk about future generations. This deal between the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Government will damage the ability of future generations to fish like the Hon. Robert Brown does right now. This deal will ensure that future generations will not be able to enjoy the sort of fishing or seafood that we enjoy now. That is not the end of it. This is an ongoing attack on marine science and on marine parks. And it will not stop here. I guarantee members that following this moratorium the deals will continue. If I were a marine scientist in this State I would be very disappointed—and if I worked for the Government I would be fearful for my job. Government members have discredited the science, and that is disgraceful. [Time expired.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! Before I call the Hon. Steve Whan I remind honourable members that this is his inaugural speech in this Chamber. I ask members to extend to him the usual courtesies.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [10.54 a.m.] (Inaugural Speech): It is a pleasure to make an inaugural speech in this place. At the outset and in my first contribution I acknowledge and pay my respects to the traditional owners of the land we meet on, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, and to the traditional owners of the lands we represent—particularly the area I come from around Queanbeyan and the Monaro, the Ngarigo and the Ngambri people. As most members would be aware, I spent eight years in the other place and Hansard records my many contributions to debate, including an inaugural speech. Nevertheless, I am delighted to be able to make some remarks in my first contribution to the Legislative Council.
To be truthful, this is probably not a place I ever expected to see myself. However, given the opportunity to continue to make a contribution to New South Wales, particularly regional and rural New South Wales, and to good government, I was keen to take up the opportunity. The chance to play a role in a strong Opposition and be part of bringing Labor back into government is one I am looking forward to. A strong and effective Opposition is important for democracy, and Labor under John Robertson's leadership has made a strong start to fulfilling that role. I am here today because I can play a part in that process, in particular in representing rural and regional New South Wales along with my Country Labor colleague the Hon Mick Veitch. Country Labor might be a small group now but we will be working to return to the days when Labor held seats like Tweed and Clarence, Burrinjuck and Murrumbidgee, Murray-Darling and, of course, the seats we held until recently like Monaro, Bathurst and Maitland, as well as to having many more representatives in this place.
Those opposite often forget that for most of the years since World War II, Labor is the party that has delivered for country New South Wales. Irrigation projects like the Snowy Scheme—opposed by The Nationals, driven by the Labor Party—infrastructure like electricity, and a whole range of projects driven by and delivered by Labor governments, often opposed by the conservatives. At Federal level we are seeing that happening right now. The Federal Labor Government is rolling out the National Broadband Network, a communications revolution for country New South Wales—the 2011 equivalent of the arrival of the railway—but opposed by the Coalition, which is happy to see New South Wales miss out on world's best technology.
In this place we may be few in numbers but we still have a great group of Country Labor members in our country branches—true believers who turn out at every election at the toughest of booths. I thank those members for their commitment over many years. I also thank so many of them who expressed their support, either in person or through emails, letters and phone calls, for me coming into this position. I also thank my colleagues in Parliament for their support and also many of my former colleagues who have indicated their support for me coming into this position. I thank Labor's State secretary, Sam Dastyari, country organiser Courtney Roach and Queanbeyan's own Tara Moriarty and the other party officials who have strongly supported me coming into this position. 3228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
Believe it or not, it was not an instant decision to put myself forward for this position. Just one of the things that made up my mind was the Government's reaction. The theatrics from the Hon. Duncan Gay were a strong incentive to taking up the position in this place. He showed me how worried the Government was about me coming in. To top it off, members took time out of the Premier's week to get him to appear on ABC television and have a go at me as well. That certainly convinced me that it was a good move to come in here. Seriously though, I did not make an instant decision.
I had started a job only a week before with a former member of this place, the Federal environment Minister, Tony Burke. He was, however, extremely supportive, and I thank him, first, for giving me a job; but, secondly, for his support in coming back to this Parliament. Tony is an excellent Minister dealing with some very important areas for New South Wales, including most particularly the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I note that, since he has taken on responsibility for that and since appointing former Minister Craig Knowles, the needs of New South Wales communities have been heard much more strongly. Most importantly, though, I needed the support of my wife, Cherie, who is in the gallery today, and our kids, Lachie and Maddi, who unfortunately are not here with us today. They said, "We've seen you do an inaugural speech, Dad." They are now 17 and 18 and have agendas of their own.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: They have a life.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Yes, they have a life, but they have indicated their support. The love and support of your family is something that makes particularly the tough times in politics bearable, and I have been lucky enough to have that from Cherie and the kids for my whole political career. I thank them for that. It makes me feel very loved that even after 20 years of marriage Cherie still misses me when I am in Sydney. Carl Scully once said to me that, after being a member in this place for a short while, he asked one of the more experienced members, "Does your wife ever stop complaining about the time you are away in Parliament?" The response from his more senior colleague was, "If she does, you should start worrying." That is good advice, I think.
While being here in Sydney is great and I enjoy the participation in Parliament, I am always pleased to get home to Queanbeyan to my family, to my community and to my garden, particularly my native plants and seedlings that I grow in my greenhouse. I am one of three members from Queanbeyan in this place. Yes, we are the emerging political capital of New South Wales. Perhaps one day we will move the Parliament to Queanbeyan for a special sitting. There is another member in the other place, whom I will mention in a moment. I love living in the Queanbeyan community. I grew up in Canberra, but when I moved to Queanbeyan I felt very welcome. We have felt welcome all the time we have lived in the community.
I again thank Cherie, Lachie and Maddi for their support. I also thank my parents, Gill and Bob Whan, who also would have loved to have been here today. However, my mum had a cataract operation yesterday and she is recovering from that today. Hopefully, they might be listening to or watching my speech on the internet. Of course, many people know my father, Bob Whan, who was a staffer in this place and a former Federal member of Parliament. He was the prime reason why, from the age of about six or seven, I started being interested in politics. I also thank Cherie's parents, Roger and Leonie McLean, and our wonderful friends, who have supported my political efforts and our family over the years.
When I made my inaugural speech in the lower House on the first day of sitting in 2003, I highlighted a number of things that I wanted to achieve and a number of principles that I thought were important. The important areas of equity and opportunity that I highlighted then—the reasons people join the Australian Labor Party—are still there for me: opportunity through quality public education and good public health care, particularly primary health care. I am pleased to say that many of the specific projects I mentioned eight years ago no longer need to be mentioned—because we delivered them. Over the past eight years Labor delivered hundreds of projects, grants and infrastructure improvements in Monaro. We had some significant environmental achievements and some wonderful social achievements, particularly in areas such as respite care.
However, that good work was not enough for Labor to hold the seat Monaro. In the context of one of the biggest swings in history, I congratulate my successor in the seat of Monaro, John Barilaro. I wish him all the best for his term in Parliament. It was personally gratifying for me that the swing in Monaro was one of the smallest in the State against a member of the former Government. Indeed, I recorded the fifteenth highest Labor primary vote in the State. I know that the reality of politics is that the current Government will spend most of the next few years repeating lines denigrating the achievements of the previous Government. That is politics, and we may have even been known to do that at times. We got the message the electorate sent in March and we do not for a second fail to recognise the tough job we have to do to earn the trust of the electorate. 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3229
However, we can be proud of some of the achievements. In Monaro we achieved new hospitals in Queanbeyan and Bombala, and the biggest road investment around Queanbeyan in more than 30 years. We have new schools in Jerrabomberra and Jindabyne. There are hundreds of other achievements. I am proud of the work I did as a Minister in the former Government. In Emergency Services we boosted Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Service funding and resources. In Primary Industries we made major investments in biosecurity, commenced work on food security strategies, took important steps in food safety and labelling, and did many other things.
I was privileged to work in those positions with many incredible public servants. Every day they showed that, despite the cynicism about the public service from some in society, many people are dedicated to public service and to providing the frank and fearless advice that government needs. I worked with heads of agencies, including Richard Sheldrake, George Davey, and Commissioners Greg Mullins, Shane Fitzsimons and Murray Kear. They are all incredibly dedicated public servants who will, I know, give equally excellent service to the current Government. Those leaders have working with them thousands of dedicated public servants who make good government possible, and they deserve our thanks. They certainly did not deserve the removal of the independent umpire when it comes to their remuneration, which was one of the first actions of the new Government.
I have had the great privilege of being the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I acknowledge the inspiration that the volunteers and the emergency services workers provide. They are an amazing bunch of people. As I am sure the current Minister saw last week, in a crisis there is no-one better than our New South Wales emergency services personnel.
In getting to this day of making an inaugural speech in this place, I have had the support of some fabulous people. I will mention Labor Party branch members, particularly in Monaro, who over many years have worked to promote our party. I refer to people such as Jill Chapman, Gunther Propst, Anthony Selden, Tom Mavec, Brian Brown, Paul Whalan, Ben Duggan and many more. I cannot list all the names, unfortunately, but I hope they know who they are. My friend and our Federal member, Dr Mike Kelly, has been a fabulous supporter of mine. We were a great team and I am sure we still will be in some ways.
I thank my former staff, some of whom, despite their fantastic skills, are unfortunately still looking for jobs—if anyone has got any ideas, let me know. Those former staff have made a great contribution to my being here today. I thank the former Monaro electorate staff, particularly Steve Curren. He worked for me and my constituents from the day I was elected to the other place until the day he handed over the keys of the office to John. I thank Lee Evans, who drove every day from Cooma to Queanbeyan, and brought an incredible knowledge of people and the region. I also thank a number of other electorate office staff, including Sarah, Jane, Lucy, Martin, Kurt, Bec and Ben.
When I was a Minister I had a fantastic team who called themselves the Whanstars. I was delighted to have an office that people wanted to get into—I had almost no staff turnover. My chief of staff, Genevieve Slattery, can take a lot of the credit for that. She was a fantastic person with great experience in government. Lucy Clynes was a wonderful deputy and she was always someone I knew I could count on right from when she came to work in my electorate office as a 20-year-old. Garth Montgomery was an amazing and a very tough media adviser. He is about to launch into a completely different world, running a martial arts and physical training small business. Carol Hughes, Shannon Jamieson, Lorraine Want, Theresa Chidiac, Dave Chalmers, Shophi Mallam, Kurt Steel, Julia Dropman, Barry Daus, Kieren Doyle, Mardi Stevens, Martin Gray—once you start you cannot miss anyone out—Michael Hutchen, Martin Elms and Emil Wajs-Chaczko all worked in my office during the time I was Minister. They served New South Wales outstandingly well, they did a great job and they made me look good.
I have come into this place as a person who over eight years has enjoyed the forum of the Parliament. I enjoy the theatre but, much more importantly, I think Parliament is a vital democratic institution that needs to be nurtured and respected. And, yes, I did hold the same views when we were in Government. It disappoints me to see the way that the efforts of Parliament and members of Parliament are so consistently trashed by the media. No doubt there are times where our actions contribute to this, but the sad fact is that the cynical portrayal of politics by media does little to encourage good people to come into politics and little to promote good government or policy.
We are lucky to live in a country that has such a strong democratic tradition and that is something we should all value. In my experience, the vast bulk of people who seek to become members of Parliament do so 3230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
for the right reasons. They reflect society and that means there is a diversity of personalities, intellects, backgrounds and personal beliefs—and that is good. There will be a few who are accidents waiting to happen— particularly after an election result like the one we saw in March—but overall they are people who are here because they want to achieve something for their communities. While many people encouraged me to come into this place, there were certainly quite a number who said, "Why do you want to do it? Why do you want to go back in? Why not join the private sector and make a bit of money? Why not go into a job where people do not always highlight the negatives?" I think Parliament and serving the people is important, even in Opposition.
Over the past eight years I sat through many speeches by Liberal and Nationals members, who also expressed views about the importance of Parliament. Imagine my disappointment to arrive back here and find that so many of those comments were hypocritical. Imagine the outrage from the Liberals and Nationals if the former Government had gagged debate in this place. Indeed, even in the lower House I cannot remember us doing it. Imagine the outrage from the Coalition if we had gone against the balanced tradition of this place and snatched the Committee chair positions for Government members. And imagine the outcry if we had slashed the staffing resources for the Opposition, as this Government has done, in a transparent attempt to try to destroy the capacity of the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of this already sneaky-looking Government. It has already been a display of extreme arrogance by this Government, one which the short honeymoon period might cover up but over future years will become increasingly exposed. As someone who has been observing or participating in politics for most of my life I know there is one important observation governments forget at their own peril: The wheel always turns; you will be back in opposition one day.
I well remember Paul Keating's election victory in 1993 when some in the media predicted he would be in government until at least the year 2000. And I have heard those same types of people predict that this Government will be here for 12 years. I am here because I do not think it will be 12 years, maybe not even eight. Let us face it, already after just three months many public servants who voted for the Coalition, including some of the 17,000 or so State employees in the Monaro electorate, are remembering why Liberal governments are so bad for them, for their families and for services to the community. This already arrogant and cocky Government seems to think it will not ever face the wrath of the electorate. It will, and it is short-sighted of the Government that it seeks to strip back the things that enhance accountability.
As part of the scrutiny of Government I am delighted to have been appointed by the Labor Leader, John Robertson, as shadow Minister for Resources and Primary Industries, Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality, and Gaming and Racing, and shadow Special Minister of State. I thank John Robertson for his attendance in the Chamber today to hear my inaugural speech. I am very much looking forward to being part of John Robertson's team and playing my part in developing policy and keeping the Government honest.
While there are not many of us on this side who have had a lot of experience in opposition, I have been an Opposition candidate and in that role I was always at pains not to fall into the constant negativity that some Oppositions take on. I will be trying to balance the inevitable need to provide a critical perspective of Government actions with a positive agenda and positive alternatives. There are tough issues in many of these portfolios, not least of which is achieving the balance between competing land uses, jobs and economic development in regional areas versus often legitimate questions and environmental concerns. I see as ongoing priorities the need for whole-of-government action on planning for food security, an issue that involves not just competing land use between minerals and agriculture but also water policy, urban development, and agricultural research and productivity.
I am looking forward to working with my colleague the Hon. Mick Veitch on ideas I have brought with me from previous work on things such as the rural and regional task force. And in Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality, and Gaming and Racing I will be a strong supporter of tourism in New South Wales, particularly regional tourism, promoting areas such as the wonderful Snowy Mountains, and for people who work in those industries, including in clubs and pubs. For those who are not aware, the Snowy Mountains have recently had about 50 centimetres of snow. If members have some time out, I urge them to take a visit to the area and have a look. It is a great place, and it is one of my favourite parts of the country. I will not hesitate, however, to highlight broken promises. And I will certainly be taking a very active interest in things that happen and need to happen in country electorates, including the Monaro electorate.
Over the years I have expressed strong views about many issues that concern the people I have represented. Public education is one area I am passionate about. As a Labor member I firmly believe every child's opportunity in life should be built on a foundation of strong and accessible education. We have a 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3231
fantastic education system in New South Wales, one we should be proud of. It is built on a long-term commitment of resources by governments—in New South Wales mainly Labor governments—on the great efforts of dedicated teachers, and, importantly, the efforts of parents and school communities.
However, it should still be a concern to us all that too often the ultimate level of achievement in education seems so closely linked to a family's socioeconomic status. And it is a concern to me, and I am sure to many others, that sometimes parents do not understand the vital role they play in their child's education, whether that is from reading to their baby or showing their child by example the importance of school by turning up at events, parents and citizens meetings, and so on.
On another important issue, for some years I have been a member of a locally based group Clean Energy for Eternity because I have been concerned about climate change. The CSIRO's predictions on climate change should worry everyone in this place—certainly anyone who cares about our rural industries, our alpine areas and the industries based on them, including the wonderful ski industry I just referred to—and, indeed, anyone who cares about the future.
I have heard the climate change deniers try to justify their position, but the overwhelming scientific opinion is clear. And what else is absolutely clear is that in 20 to 30 years time people will look back on Tony Abbott and those in the Federal Opposition with the same sort of amusement reserved for the flat-earthers. At least I hope we will be able to look back with amusement and will not have to look back with despair over lost opportunities. It seems to me that even if you do not agree with climate change it is very hard to argue logically that in pricing a good you should not count, in some way at least, the impact the production of that good causes. I would have thought that even the free market zealots would feel some appeal to a structure that puts money in the consumers hand and allows them to make choices about what and how much they will consume—or, indeed, that allows them to, by changing their consumption patterns, keep some money in their pocket.
As a representative of regional New South Wales I also have strong views about the sorts of things we need to do to attract people to inland communities—the things that make country communities great places for families to relocate to. Last night the Opposition supported the Government's regional relocation bill. We agree with the sentiment—the objective of getting people to relocate out of Sydney. I do not think anyone could disagree that it is desirable to reduce the population growth pressure on Sydney and encourage growth that utilises underutilised infrastructure in regional communities and, importantly, provides skilled workers in regional New South Wales.
But we supported this bill because the Government made an election commitment. The program is weak and frankly deeply flawed—$7,000 subsidies for 40,000 people to move to regional areas; $280 million of taxpayers' money with no performance standards at all. There is nothing in the policy to make sure these funds are going to people who otherwise would not have moved—indeed, nothing even to measure whether it has made a difference to the decision. Country people want the Government to have a go at regional development, but they do not want to see money wasted, particularly when there are so many things in regional areas the money could be used for.
Simply counting the number of people who get the grant is not a performance measure. For example, should we be subsidising people who are retiring to the coast? The bottom line is that there is nothing in the bill to ensure that it results in a single additional person moving to regional New South Wales. I hope it does what it seeks to achieve, but more than likely it will result in money being wasted. I think of the things we could have done with $280 million for regional New South Wales. We could implement programs to build residential facilities at regional university campuses, for example, so we could attract students who, having studied in a regional area, might stay and live there. Let us hope I am wrong, but this program has all the hallmarks of a poorly thought-through and hastily constructed program. This is a bit symptomatic of the Government— programs with grand titles for regional areas but the actual programs are a bit of a hodgepodge.
This regional relocation policy was obviously designed in part to placate the areas of Sydney concerned about denser population growth or urban sprawl. I do not believe it does that. Despite the fact that I talk a lot about rural and regional New South Wales, I also care about Sydney, and about lifestyles and facilities. It seems to me that nimbyism dominates the rest of the Coalition's planning for the future of Sydney. I remain concerned about comments the Coalition made in the lead-up to the election that suggested it rejected denser urban population centred around public transport nodes in Sydney, instead seeing the bulk of future population growth occurring in western Sydney. 3232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
At the time this policy was announced I raised concerns about the future of open spaces in western Sydney, and particularly the future of viable agriculture in the Sydney Basin. The Sydney Basin is part of our State's food security: it is still a vital source of fresh fruit and vegies, and the Government's attitude to urban development puts that at risk. I was disappointed I did not get the opportunity to speak on the regional relocation bill because I could go on. But for today I will draw that part of speech to a close.
Before concluding I want to refer to the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011, which is being debated in this House today. The Opposition opposes the bill, which was introduced by the Shooters and Fishers Party. There are a couple of very strong reasons for our opposition to it. As a former Minister who was involved in a number of marine park decisions, I want to put some of those decisions on the record. I particularly want to comment on the decision the Government made recently to reverse the zoning decisions in the Jervis Bay area, in particular, but also in the Coffs Harbour area, around Fish Rock.
The Jervis Bay decision is quite bemusing. During the consultation process there was overwhelming support for the final outcome for the Jervis Bay Marine Park. It has been a marine park that recreational fishers have loved for many years. As with the Batemans Marine Park, I receive constant feedback from recreational fishers about how much better the fishing opportunities are in those areas since elements of commercial fishing, in particular, were removed from some of the estuaries. Living in Queanbeyan as I do but having close contacts with the South Coast, that is a consistent message I receive in relation to those marine parks.
The Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011 is not necessary. Before the election the former Government said it would not introduce further marine parks until the existing marine parks were bedded in and we had been able to see how well they were accepted by the community. The former Government went through a very long consultation process on the Coffs Harbour area marine park. Former Minister Sartor and I spent many hours working out how we could protect the rights and opportunities for recreational fishers in that area. The eventual outcome did protect the ability for recreational fishers in many parts of that marine park. Importantly, it protected—and I would have thought The Nationals would have been concerned about this—the prawn trawling through an important part of that area.
We looked at the exact trawl pattern maps to work out how we could maintain a viable industry whilst enhancing the protection zones. We recognised that the people of New South Wales should be able to get Australian seafood at the fish markets—I shall return to the topic of fish markets in a future contribution in this place—and not rely on imports. The State and Federal governments can control production intake to ensure that we achieve a sustainable fishery in New South Wales.
I make particular mention of Fish Rock, where measures were put in place to protect the breeding patterns of grey nurse sharks. Fish Rock was not on my agenda when I became Minister for Primary Industries in the former Government. However, it came on my agenda for one reason and one reason only: the new Deputy Premier, Andrew Stoner, came to see me with a member of the dive community. He told me that the existing protections around Fish Rock were inadequate. He told me we needed to review the protections and offer some further protections. He was not particularly specific in what he wanted, but I took his suggestion and I asked my department to come up with a consultation paper.
The consultation paper it came up with went further than a lot of people in the community wanted it to go—it certainly went further than recreational fishers wanted it to go. In responding to that consultation paper, I modified the proposal. I pulled it right back to quite small areas around Fish Rock because I felt it might have got bipartisan support. I knew bipartisan support was going to be important to getting long-lasting protection on that. Governments need to consider whether their reforms will survive the next change of government—I had that in mind. It is unfortunate that the O'Farrell Government has reversed that sensible protection, which allowed recreational fishing to continue within quite a close distance off Fish Rock. It also offered further protection for grey nurse sharks, which evidence showed were being hurt by some of the hooks used in the area. I stand by the decision I made at Fish Rock. It is a shame that that decision was reversed.
I find the way the reversals have been made—particularly the public comments—to be slightly dishonest, but I understand that the Government is in a place to do that. I was interested to note the comment of the Minister opposite when he said that the Government's review may result in additional areas being protected. We did not hear a lot about that, but if that is justified I am sure we will all agree with it. As a former Minister for Primary Industries, I felt it important to place on record some of the history of those decisions. Marine parks play an important part in the protection of species around New South Wales waters, not only for conservation but also for recreational fishing. I have received very strong feedback from recreational fishers about this and also many areas of support. 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3233
As the responsible Minister one of the other things I was pleased to be able to do using the funds raised through recreational fishing licence fees, which were put in place by the former Government with the support of recreational fishers, was to create a number of artificial reefs and reef balls in many parts of the State. They are a wonderful enhancement to recreational fishing—
The Hon. Robert Brown: Hear, hear! Well done!
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: —and something I hope will be continued under the current Government. I thank Cherie for being here for my inaugural speech. I thank all members, particularly my colleagues, for listening to my inaugural speech. It is a great privilege and an honour to be in this place. I am sure I will enjoy being here. I hope I will do proud all who have supported me in performing my functions here.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.25 a.m.]: I speak briefly in support of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011, which was introduced by Hon. Robert Brown. This bill implements the recommendations of the Select Committee on Recreational Fishing, which submitted its report out of session in December 2011. Recommendation No. 15 of that report states:
That the New South Wales Government not create any new marine park until the next five-year marine park research plan is completed.
That recommendation, which forms part of a report that was endorsed by the Hon. Ian Cohen, The Greens member on the committee, is now embodied in this bill. If The Greens are consistent, they should support the bill. It was said in the dissenting statements of that report that never was a draft report so amended or had so many sections omitted. That would indicate that the Hon. Ian Cohen was successful in influencing some of the matters contained in it, in conjunction with the Labor members. I particularly note this interesting paragraph, which appears in the dissenting statements on page 419:
The common argument is that "only 20% of the area has been closed to fishing – you can still fish in the remaining 80%". While this statement is technically correct, many of the fishers submitted that the20% closed off contains the better reefs and fishing grounds, while the majority of the 80% remaining contains mainly sand flats and other "fish free" areas, so that fishers are forced to overfish the small areas of productive reefs and grounds that are excluded from the exclusion zones.
That paragraph illustrates the need for this legislation and the moratorium. The Government has proposed a number of amendments, one of which deals with the moratorium period. I understand the Shooters and Fishers Party will support those amendments, as will the Christian Democratic Party in due course. Government amendment No. 1 clarifies the moratorium period and states:
moratorium period means:
(a) the period of 5 years commencing on the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011, or
(b) if an order is made under section 48B specifying a shorter period commencing on that commencement, that shorter period.
So it could be less than five years, but it would appear to be a sufficiently long period to allow further research to be done, as was recommended in the committee report. Recommendation 14 states:
That the New South Wales Government provides sufficient funding to ensure the effective and timely implementation of the twenty-four recommendations contained within the December 2009 report Marine Park Science in NSW—and that Independent Review.
To effectively implement the proposal, sufficient funds must be allocated by the Coalition Government and more research must be done. Generally, all stakeholders agree with the proposal before the House. The audit, when conducted, will provide further evidence that will influence government policy on the future of marine parks. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. I note the vehement opposition of The Greens and their reference to voodoo science.
Dr John Kaye: That was Duncan Gay.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The Greens quoted him. Voodoo science applies to The Greens. I am reminded of a statement by one of the heroes of the Greens party, Jack Mundey, who said that the Greens party philosophy could be summed up by the words "ecological Marxism". Those words do sum up The Greens. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. 3234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.32 a.m.]: I support the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011 and congratulate the Shooters and Fishers Party on introducing it. The Leader of the Opposition in his address to this House misled the House when he said that the Liberals and Nationals did not flag their intention to review the Fish Rock and Solitary Islands Marine Park zones. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to put on the record a media release issued by the Hon. Duncan Gay on Monday, 31 January 2011 at 6.01 p.m.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Before the election?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Well before the election. The media release states:
Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay today slammed Primary Industries Minister Steve Whan for his eleventh hour announcement of changes to fishing regulations at Fish Rock and Green Island, as well as zoning changes within the Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay Marine Parks.
The changes to fishing regulations at Fish Rock and Green Island ban most forms of recreational line fishing within the specified waters and take effect immediately.
This comes on top of Labor's announcement of increases to sanctuary zones in the Solitary Islands Marine Park and a significant reduction to the allowable prawn trawling area, in addition to the banning of all trawling and lift netting in the Jervis Bay Marine Park.
"These announcements are an act of hypocrisy from Premier Kristina Keneally," said Mr Gay.
"As we approach the caretaker mode of government, the Keneally Labor Government has acted inappropriately by continuing to put in place these major changes that have a big impact on regional fishing communities.
"Given she selfishly prorogued the Parliament in a desperate bid to avoid the electricity inquiry, Kristina Keneally should not on a daily basis be making important decisions that affect people's lives.
"To reflect our commitment to proper community consultation, if elected a NSW Liberals & Nationals Government would immediately introduce a regulation to put the Fish Rock issue and Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay Marine Park review recommendations back out for a further three months of proper community consultation before any final decision is made.
"Primary Industries Minister Steve Whan did the absolute minimum amount of community consultation and if it wasn't for the involvement of local fishing action groups he would have had his way and done absolutely none at all.
"The Keneally Labor Government has shown time and time again it has little consideration for regional fishing communities."
Mr Gay said this latest announcement was yet another blow to the fishing community from a State Labor Government more concerned about Greens threats to their inner-Sydney seats than properly protecting the environment and looking after our fishing communities and seafood industry.
"The Keneally Labor Government simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing by either fishermen or the environment when it comes to these decisions," he said.
As I said, the Hon. Duncan Gay issued that media release on 31 January 2011. For the Leader of the Opposition in this House to suggest that we went to the election without flagging our intentions in this regard is absolute and complete nonsense. I support the bill and congratulate the Shooters and Fishers Party on introducing it in this House.
Dr JOHN KAYE [11.35 a.m.]: The Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011 is a piece of legislation that highlights two key features of modern politics. The first is the strength of the deal that has been cut between the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Christian Democratic Party and the Coalition. It has been said that this is Coalition policy that was taken to the last election. The previous speaker, the Hon. Rick Colless, made a great show that this is Coalition policy that was taken to the last election. The strength of the deal is that this is Coalition policy being implemented by the Shooters and Fishers. It is a sign of the Government's dependency on parties in this Chamber that it would hand over what was clearly—based on the previous speaker's comments—an important piece of Coalition policy to the Shooters and Fishers to implement.
Clearly, this is part of the 30 pieces of silver that was signed over to support the Government's highly repressive "WorkNoChoices" New South Wales legislation. Another piece of the jigsaw puzzle is put in position as part of the deals. The Government was so desperate to get its legislation through that it handed over a key policy which it believed was most attractive to one of its core constituencies. It is my view that it is wrong in that belief. But it was so important for the Government to lock in the Shooters and Fishers and the Christian Democrats that it handed over a key piece of policy to the Shooters and Fishers to implement.
The second feature of this legislation is that it highlights that two views of the world are emerging in modern politics. The first view of the world is based on an acceptance of science, the scientific process and 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3235
scientific scepticism. It is based on an acceptance of the idea that a proposition is put forward, the proposition is tested by evidence and the evidence is published in a peer review journal and put out for criticism. As the criticism evolves hypotheses emerge from the discussion around the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. Those hypotheses are tested over and again and eventually become theories. They become theories when there is no evidence to destroy them and strong evidence to support them. That is the Enlightenment view of the universe. The Enlightenment came about after many years of struggling to get ideas heard through the Dark Ages. Then came the Enlightenment, which introduced the view that scientific process should triumph. That scientific process has delivered advances in medicine, transport, communications and health and an understanding of environmental sciences.
The other view of the world is epitomised by this legislation. It is a populist anti-science view of the world. This is not the first time that the know-nothings have taken over. It has happened in the past. At the beginning of the twentieth century a know-nothing movement occurred in the United States of America, which devastated scientific understanding and set back technological advancement in the United States. This legislation is another example of that movement in that it has trashed the science, ignored the body of expertise and gone with popular science. Popular science serves a particular view of the world and stirs up animosity towards scientists and the scientific process. There is no question that there is settled science on the benefits of marine national parks, no-take zones, marine conservation areas and marine protected areas. What is not settled is the capacity of the body of politics to accept science when it is presented to it.
On 16 August 2010 two of Australia's leading marine scientists, Professor Hugh Possingham, from the University of Queensland, and Dr John Nevill from Victoria, wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott. That open letter which is publicly available sets out clearly, in about 25 references, the settled science dating back to the 1970s and also a lot of modern science about the effects of marine protected areas. It was signed by hundreds of Australia's leading scientists—people who are experts from universities such as Edith Cowan University and a marine geologist from Googong. Almost every known marine scientist around Australia signed that letter, which states:
Recently articles have appeared in State and national press suggesting that there is little or no scientific evidence to support the creation of systems of marine protected areas. This is false.
Here we have many leading marine scientists around Australia, almost all of whom have been engaged in the process of peer-reviewed science. I know that there are people in this Chamber who, when they hear me say the words "peer-review", will say, "There is the conspiracy". But there are some people in this Chamber who have written peer-reviewed papers and who know the peer review process. They know the rigour that peer review brings to papers.
[Interruption]
You are not a scientist, Dr Phelps.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I have written peer review papers myself. There is peer review and there is pal review.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection of Dr Phelps, who has yet again engaged in his dirty, grubby smearing of the scientific process. If he gets sick he should not take antibiotics because, according to him, antibiotics are nothing but a conspiracy between scientists. Dr Phelps should be utterly ashamed of himself. In the letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Professor Possingham and Dr Nevill outline the positive impacts of biodiversity and state that in many cases there are positive impacts also on fisheries. They point out:
Some reserve systems also produce substantial economic benefits through tourism, as well as providing important educational, inspirational and research opportunities.
Across every aspect of human endeavour involved with the marine ecosystem the marine protected areas benefit. The authors of the letter go on to state:
The marine environment faces five general threats: climate change and ocean acidification resulting from rising CO2 levels, overfishing, habitat damage, pollution, and the effects of alien organisms.
They make the important point that currently the major challenge to the ocean environment is overfishing and overexploitation. However, they go on to state:
... this will change in the near future as rising CO2 levels affect ocean chemistry, temperatures and sea levels. Fishing activities in Australia have had damaging effects on biodiversity.
3236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
They are saying that currently the key impact is fishing activities but that shortly ocean acidification and increased ocean temperatures from climate change will overtake that. The obvious conclusion from that statement is that we must do everything we can now to protect and enhance marine areas and the marine population in order to make our marine population more robust. They go on to refer to the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef and how it is considered to be a global model of a scientific practice, and they refer also to the benefits. They then write in general terms and state:
Scientific studies have confirmed several "common sense" outcomes. Where areas are effectively protected (and that does mean that compliance measures must be in force) harvested species (fish, for example) tend to be older, larger and more abundant.
That means where there is protection older species are harvested and marine protection measures allow species to mature. They allow the complete lifecycle of a species to occur so there is a more representative age demographic amongst the fish being harvested. That is a key measure of the health of a resource. I am sure that the Hon. Rick Colless knows from his days as an agronomist that if one harvests a resource and younger and younger representatives of a species are being taken it is a fundamental and universal sign from any model— from a simple Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model through to the more complex computer models that are used now—of a population at risk when the harvested demographic is getting younger. The letter states clearly that marine protected zones lead to an increase in ages of species. It then goes on to state:
Some of the oldest marine protected areas are still showing the effects of "recovery" from harvesting and other pressures. Protected areas can also ameliorate coral disease by promoting ecological resilience.
The authors refer also to specific successes in the shallow seagrass areas of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Based on the signs that they reviewed and the experience of these marine scientists, there are direct recovery benefits which continue for some time. So we continue to see benefits even after an area has been protected for some time. They go on to state:
Over the last few years, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles confirming the beneficial effects of marine protected areas, supplemented by several recent in-depth reviews.
The authors provide a list of those articles and then continue:
In addition, there have been several major scientific consensus statements, again confirming a scientific basis, and the conservation value, of marine protected areas.
This important document summarises the settled consensus view of Australian scientists. This legislation seeks to disregard that settled view. Based on a few dodgy-paid and disgruntled scientists—and there are always minority views, which is a good thing—and on the minority view among scientists, this Government is saying, "Let us trash the warnings. Let us disregard the warnings of the marine fraternity, go ahead and then say that we will not do any more." In some senses it could be said that a moratorium is just a waiting period so what is the problem? The problem is precisely what is contained in this letter. The longer we wait to restore the health of fisheries the less resilient they will be against rising ocean acidification, rising ocean temperatures and continued overexploitation. By imposing a moratorium and saying that it will not listen to settled science, that it will go off and do something else for five years—or possibly less, given the amendments—the Government is sending this message: We will not bother about settled science or heed the warnings about the future health of fish populations; we will listen to the political bleating of a minority." If nothing else this legislation is anti-recreational fishing. It is against the Enlightened view—
The Hon. Robert Brown: That is a misrepresentation.
Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Robert Brown and his little mate will have an opportunity to respond later to members' contributions. However, I ask them to listen to me now. This legislation is anti-recreational fishing. If people happen to believe that they want an opportunity to fish when they are older and they want their kids and their grandkids to have an opportunity to fish, they need one thing in order to be able to do so—that is, fish. Our scientists are warning us that to maintain our fish population and accessibility we must have marine protected areas. That is the settled science. There could be no more foolhardy thing for this Parliament to do than to ignore the people who look after the canaries in the coalmines, and there could be no more foolhardy thing to do than to disregard the warnings generated by the agreed science on issues such as supporting marine protected areas. I join my colleague Cate Faehrmann in opposing this legislation.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [11.50 a.m.]: During his inaugural speech the Hon. Steve Whan referred to the Deputy Premier's involvement in the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011. After hearing the honourable member's contribution I sought advice from the Deputy Premier to get his take on what 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3237
happened. He has informed me that he facilitated a meeting with the Hon. Steve Whan in his capacity as the Minister for Primary Industries. The meeting was requested by a constituent dive operator to discuss the finetuning of the existing regulations to provide better protection for the sharks in a way that was acceptable to local anglers and to ensure better signage and enforcement of regulations.
The then Minister completely failed on all counts. He proposed a ban on fishing around Fish Rock and Green Island and in so doing alienated the entire fishing fraternity in New South Wales. That is why the Coalition Government has rolled back the ban and has commenced genuine consultation and the application of proper science. The Coalition believes that fishers are happy to work with the Government to prevent hooking sharks, but will not cop knee-jerk reactions like the former Minister's lock-out, which was all about preferences.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.52 a.m.]: I support the comments of my colleagues Cate Faehrmann and Dr John Kaye on the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011, which is a creature of the new four-party Coalition that is now running New South Wales. This Coalition is devoted to more guns in our society, a direct attack on the environment and our national parks, the winding back of key marine park protection and threatening key endangered species like the grey nurse shark while at the same time being committed to a gross attack on workers. A four-party ultra conservative Coalition now appears to be running this State.
This bill calls for a statewide moratorium on new marine parks in addition to the winding back of marine park protection for endangered grey nurse sharks at Fish Rock and Green Island. It demonstrates that this new Government will side whenever possible with the Shooters and Fishers Party—the kill anything party that is now dominating the Coalition's environmental agenda. The Shooters and Fishers Party not only has the grey nurse sharks in its sights; it has also knocked off the former shadow Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who had the temerity to oppose it and its radical attacks on the environment, and particularly its plan to wind back the protection of marine parks.
In its report entitled "Torn Blue Fringe", the National Parks Association brings together some key findings about marine parks and the marine environment in New South Wales. That environment has relatively low productivity and nutrient feeds compared with other marine environments around the world, but it has extraordinary levels of biodiversity. In fact, the marine environment encompassing Sydney Harbour and the surrounding waters contains greater biodiversity—that is, more species of fish and invertebrates—than that in the entire waterways of Western Europe. We have a precious marine environment here in New South Wales. The report states:
Australia's estuarine and marine systems are generally low in productivity and may not be as resilient as more productive systems. What resilience the system does have is decreased by fishing stress, making not just ecosystems, but the industries that rely on them, vulnerable to climate change.
Our marine park system is designed to provide protected areas that allow marine ecosystems to consolidate and rebound to ensure that we have long-term and sustainable recreational and commercial fishing industries. The report also states:
When biodiversity declines, ecosystems and the services they provide become increasingly threatened. As industries such as commercial and recreational fishing, aquaculture and coastal tourism rely on healthy marine environments, declining biodiversity will have considerable economic impacts.
We also know from the "Torn Blue Fringe" that Australia and New South Wales have previously committed to protecting our marine ecosystems, particularly in some important no-take perpetual marine sanctuaries. The report states:
The World Conservation Union has recommended that a target of between 20% and 30% of each marine ecosystem and habitat be included in strictly protected areas (IUCN Category 1a sanctuaries) by 2012. These no-take areas benefit not just biodiversity, but the human communities that rely on marine areas. A further 130,000 ha must be given sanctuary protection to reach the 20% recommended by many marine scientists and the World Conservation Union.
The Hon. Steve Whan spoke about the overwhelmingly positive response from the communities surrounding Jervis Bay Marine Park about the increasing fish stocks available for recreational fishing and greater biodiversity, which encourages ecotourism and job creation. Those communities have voted comprehensively in support of marine parks. The local people say that they want more areas set aside as marine parks and 3238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
maintenance of key marine sanctuary zones. Those zones enhance recreational fishing, produce tourism opportunities, create jobs and increase biodiversity in our key marine regions. The "Torn Blue Fringe" also states:
While approximately 37% of the New South Wales jurisdiction is included within notional marine protected areas, a mere 6.5% is strictly protected. The remainder of the NSW marine protected area system does little to protect marine biodiversity and fished populations, as both commercial and recreational fishing is allowed to continue within it. As such, over 300,000 ha within Marine Parks in NSW does not conform to the World Conservation Union criteria for marine protected areas.
We hear the Chicken Little complaint from the Shooters and Fishers Party that there has been a massive expansion of marine parks that are designed to exclude recreational fishers from the coastal waters of New South Wales. Nothing could be further from the truth. A mere 6.5 per cent of our coastal waters are protected in genuine sanctuary zones, but that is still too much for this radical far-right member of the new governing Coalition in New South Wales. The Shooters and Fishers Party wants to wind back even that fractional percentage of those key protected marine areas. Because of its sway with the new Coalition Government, the Shooters and Fishers Party has convinced the Premier and the Minister for Resources and Energy to sign on to its agenda to wind back even the limited marine protections we have in New South Wales.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Shooters and Fishers Party has a very clear agenda that it has announced in unambiguous terms. It wants to wind back marine parks. It wants to increase access for recreational fishers and shooters in key protected areas. That is what the Shooters and Fishers Party stands for. That is its agenda: more access to State forests with guns, more access to national parks with guns, fewer protected zones, wind back marine parks, increase fishing in our coastal waters, and fewer restrictions on recreational fishing. The Shooters and Fishers Party nailed its colours to the mast. The Greens comprehensively disagree with the shooters' agenda on all those key points. But the Shooters and Fishers Party went to the people with that agenda at the election; it was very clear about it. The real criticism is when it co-opts the Government to sign on to that agenda, just as the previous Government signed on to a series of laws watering down firearms controls in New South Wales. That was an indictment on the previous Government. Equally, it is an indictment on this Government that it has signed on to the radical, anti-environment agenda of the Shooters and Fishers Party.
The Coalition went to the election as the moderate, friendly conservative you could give a hug to while in a national park. But it is far from that. Barry O'Farrell is leading a Government that is directly attacking some of the most critically endangered species in New South Wales. It is hard to imagine a more critically endangered species in this State than our grey nurse shark population. As the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, a shark specialist group and probably one of the most esteemed scientific panels studying shark populations around the globe, noted:
The best current estimate of the number of grey nurse sharks left in the wild on the east coast of Australia [the entire east coast of Australia] is only 1400.
That is the entire remaining population of grey nurse sharks on the east coast of Australia—less than 1,400. As recently as 25 May 2011, Dr Colin Simpfendorfer, Regional Vice Chair (Oceania) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Shark Specialist Group, wrote to the Minister. In part, he said:
Dear Minister Hodgkinson
I write to you on behalf of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group in my capacity as the Regional Vice Chair (Oceania). The Shark Specialist Group is a group of about 160 experts from 12 regional groups around the world in the fields of shark biology, conservation, management, fisheries and taxonomy connected by their joint goal to promote the sustainable use, wise management and conservation of all sharks, rays and chimaeras.
That is an expert panel of international standing. This is not voodoo science, as the shooters would have us believe. This is not voodoo science, as the Hon. Duncan Gay would have members believe. This is a highly esteemed group of international experts who have a deep understanding of the pressures facing shark populations around the world. In their communication to the Minister, they continue:
With the population— and here they are speaking about grey nurse sharks on the east coast—
at this critically low level even small amounts of mortality from interactions with fishing gears are likely to pose a serious threat to the survival of this species.
23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3239
In saying that, they make reference to key peer-reviewed scientific studies from as late as 2008. They go on to say:
The two locations that you removed protections from on April 29 of this year have been established by rigorous scientific research, including by staff of New South Wales Primary Industries, to be important habitats for the critically endangered population of grey nurse sharks that lives on Australia's east coast.
There is also clear evidence from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries …
Again, they reference that statement with the extensive research carried out by the New South Wales Department of Fisheries—junked by the Minister as voodoo science, junked by the shooters as voodoo science. They continue:
That bottom fishing catches and/or injures grey nurse sharks at these types of aggregation sites. As such, your revocation of the new closures at these two locations is likely to lead to greater injury and death of grey nurse sharks and increase the risk that this species will go extinct.
Let us make no mistake: The closure of the protected zones at Fish Rock and Green Island is a critical blow to an iconic species in the marine waters of New South Wales, the grey nurse shark. But rather than adopt the precautionary principle and retain these protection zones while some kind of scientific study is conducted, the Government junked the precautionary principle. It has put threatened populations at risk, particularly the iconic grey nurse shark, by refusing to maintain the protection while the Government commissions further studies. If the Government wants to have further scientific studies, all strength to it. But far and away the balance of today's scientific studies says, first, we have insufficient protections for our marine park areas; and, secondly, in the areas that were revoked as recently as a month ago by the Minister our critically endangered grey nurse shark population will face imminent extinction. What did the International Union for the Conservation of Nature ask of the Government in its correspondence? It said:
The IUCN Shark Specialist Group therefore strongly urges you to:
1. Immediately reinstate the protective measures for grey nurse sharks at Fish Rock and Green Island that you revoked on April 29, 2011. This precautionary measure should remain in place at least until the scientific review of the effectiveness of the management arrangements are completed.
Why will the Government not follow the best scientific advice to protect this key species? Why has the Government instead responded to the repeated and vocal calls from the Shooters and Fishers Party to wind back marine parks? It is obvious, as the goings-on in this place over the past month have shown. The Government has to deal with the shooters. It will deliver for the shooters on their anti-environment, pro gun agenda, in return for which the shooters will be a dependable vote in the Coalition's attack on public sector workers and its other radical attacks on institutional protections such as the Industrial Relations Commission. Indeed, the role of this House as an independent House of review is also under attack in return for the Government feeding the chooks and supporting the Shooters and Fishers Party attack on marine parks.
The Hon. Robert Borsak: Cluck, cluck, cluck.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection from the Hon. Robert Borsak, who is clucking like a chook. At the same time the Shooters and Fishers Party will increase the number of guns in our society. The very next bill that the party will bring to this House seeks to wind back significant controls on firearms in New South Wales. It is a real one-two. First, the marine parks come under attack with the moratorium, then there will be next to no regulation of air rifles—our kids will be able to get their hands on air rifles—and there will be guns in our national parks for the first time with no prior written permission necessary. The Shooters and Fishers Party wants to leave guns in the hands of people who have been the subject of domestic violence orders. This is the one-two from the Shooters and Fishers Party. It signs up to the radical attack on industrial relations and, in return, it gets its attack on marine parks and its gun culture through, bit by bit, with the help of the new Coalition Government.
The attack on marine parks in New South Wales shows again how the conservative parties in Australia, whether at a State level in New South Wales or at a Federal level, are standing against the international movements to protect our environment. Probably the only two places where you will find an aggressive conservative opposition denying the science of climate change are Australia and the United States. The rest of the world is taking action on climate change and following the science. In New South Wales this radical Coalition Government, with its anti-science agenda, is standing against an international movement to increase the protection of marine parks. It is not just in New South Wales that marine parks are being put in place to 3240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
protect critically endangered species; it is happening in other parts of Australia. We are seeing it on the Great Barrier Reef, where no-take reserves have been shown to benefit overall ecosystem health and resilience. This has reduced the outbreaks of coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish and led to a greater abundance of coral.
In the Maria Island Reserve in Tasmania the establishment of sanctuary zones resulted in an increase in large predators such as rock lobster and large fishes, and a decrease in other species such as urchins and abalone. The reserve has also seen the cover of kelp substantially improve over that time. The United States Georges Bank Reserve in the Gulf of Maine is enabling benthic habitats to recover. Protection from trawling has led to a significant increase in the abundance, biomass, species diversity and production of benthic animals such as echinoderms, hydroids and sea fans in the Georges Bank Reserve. Those effects are likely to enhance the production of commercial species such as haddock and flounders, leading to long-term sustained benefits. I am grateful to the Government of South Australia for producing a comprehensive study of international marine parks and providing this information.
We know that the Leigh Marine Reserve in New Zealand has shifted from being unnaturally dominated by sea urchins to being far more diverse and becoming a far more resilient ecosystem. We see it in five marine parks in South Africa. We see time and time again other nations around the world moving to protect their environment, while what do we see here in New South Wales? Barry O'Farrell and his new four-member Coalition are working in exactly the opposite direction. They are saying no to any new marine parks and yes to whatever it is the Shooters and Fishers Party demand—whether that is more guns, reduced marine parks or winding back national parks. This is a Government—with a new four-member Coalition—that is anti-worker, anti-environment and pro guns. In the course of the election campaign—
The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: It's anti-science.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is anti-science. None of this featured in the Coalition's election campaign. [Time expired.]
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [12.12 p.m.]: Once again, we have heard an incredible contribution from The Greens. The Greens are surely the most reactionary party in Australia today. They are reactionary in the sense that, whenever there is a good idea, they react against it. The whole theme of The Greens can be interpreted in three simple words: "lock it up". Lock it up for forever; lock it up and throw away the key. Lock it up forever and do not let humans into it. But they will let in blackberry bushes and feral dogs. That is The Greens' vision of national parks.
Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: This bill is about marine parks. It is difficult to know how the Government Whip is going to claim that feral dogs or blackberry bushes are going to infest marine parks, which are the subject of this bill.
The Hon. Robert Brown: To the point of order: Madam Deputy-President, during the debate I note that you allowed the Hon. David Shoebridge considerable latitude to introduce issues such as firearms legislation into the debate, so I see no difference in this instance.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that his comments must be generally relevant at all times.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: My understanding is that second reading debates are generally expansive. If you are looking at the ideas that form a party's response to a policy, you cannot go past The Greens because it is, "Lock it up, lock it up, lock it up." The Greens want to lock up the land. They want to lock up the rivers. They want to lock up the oceans. They would want to lock up the sky if they could. In fact, it is only illegal immigrants that they do not want to lock up. They are very happy not to lock them up, but everything else they would lock up. The Hon. David Shoebridge is right: The only difference is that in this case you will not get blackberry bushes and you will not get feral dogs running through these locked up marine parks.
But I am very disappointed that Labor is not supporting the bill before us today. It is a sensible and reasonable bill. I was most intrigued by the Hon. Steve Whan's contribution, which sounded awfully like a leadership bid. I know the Hon. Luke Foley is doing a very good job as Leader of the Opposition in this place, and if you compared the inaugural speeches of both members, by any objective standard, you would have to say that the Hon. Luke Foley is a far better contender. I know he may be worried that the Hon. Steve Whan is sitting on the back benches, plotting— 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3241
The Hon. Luke Foley: He is on the front bench.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: From the front bench the Hon. Steve Whan is trying to get the numbers to put the New South Wales right back into what it perceives to be its natural position—leading the party. I say, no, let talent have its say and let the honourable member who is currently the Leader of the Opposition remain in place. There are many people who have ideas about the Labor Party at the current time. Their response to this bill is indicative of what Senator Steve Hutchins said, which is that the Australian Labor Party brand is terminally damaged in New South Wales.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, I have been very tolerant of the Government Whip, but referring to valedictory speeches in the Australian Senate by retiring Senators has absolutely nothing to do with the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Bill 2011. It is in no way relevant, and I ask you to bring the Government Whip back to the leave of the bill.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I again remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps of the need for him to remain generally relevant.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Thank you. I will not continue along that line. Clearly Labor members' response shows that they are a depleted husk of an Opposition. The desiccated kernels sitting opposite are indicative of how depleted they are. I must digress slightly. Mr Hutchins also branded the former New South Wales Treasurer Eric Roozendaal as "heartless". Congratulations on stating the obvious! How long did it take him to work that out? The Greens say that we have to adopt the precautionary principle. They love the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is nothing more than an argument to never do anything. It is an argument to do nothing because it may, somewhere deep into the future, have some sort of massively unforeseen consequence. That fits nicely with The Greens' general approach to national parks, which is to do nothing—other than lock them up. The honourable member says that we are attacking critically endangered species. I would say that the most critically endangered species in New South Wales these days are the red Greens, not the green Greens. The three great hunters—Ian Cohen, Bob Brown and Ben Oquist—have made it clear who is on their target list. This is a very good bill and we will be supporting it.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [12.18 p.m.], in reply: I will not take up too much time of the House. In our view, this is a straightforward, simple bill. I foreshadow at the outset that we will not oppose the Government's amendments in Committee—although I will say that we are not entirely happy with them. We have stood in this House on many occasions and relied on governments on both sides to give assurances that certain things were going to happen. In this case, we will take the Government's word that it will undertake the reviews quickly and that the audit of the science will take into account the findings of the previous Government's independent review of the science on marine parks. I also hope the Government will commit to putting sufficient money aside to follow up on whatever research emerges from the audit.
With regard to the Government's foreshadowed amendments, the reason five years was chosen in my original bill is that this accords with the recommendations of the independent scientific committee that between five and 15 years are needed to carry out some of this research. Regardless of what the audit finds, any research it recommends into the marine parks research program will take time and must be funded properly. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the Government's consistency in not supporting the bill. I remind the Hon. Luke Foley that in the last Parliament the Minister for the Environment in this House, the Hon. John Robertson, said in his speech on the second reading that he supported the bill. It was only later that the Government changed its mind and withdrew its support for the bill.
I will respond briefly to the Hon. Steve Whan's comments about the genesis of the Fish Rock regulation. I understand it was the member for the local seat who took representatives to former Minister Whan's office to discuss implementing a regulation to prohibit certain types of fishing at Fish Rock. I point out that the person who made that representation to the Minister was a representative of the local commercial dive operators. Dive operators have unfettered access to that grey nurse habitat. Many spearfishermen I have spoken to have said that that, in itself, is a bit of a problem. If 40 bubbleheads, as they are called, are put into the water on top of a grey nurse aggregating site it will cause problems.
Mr David Shoebridge referred to the number of grey nurse sharks in our waters. I clearly recall his former colleague, the Hon. Ian Cohen, berating the House about the fact that there were only 300 grey nurse sharks off the coast of New South Wales. Indeed, the Nature Conservation Council took a matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in order to overturn part of the ocean trap and line regulation, on the basis that 3242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
research had shown that grey nurse sharks were about to become extinct. That matter was overturned by the tribunal; indeed, it repudiated the science from NSW Fisheries that had been put forward. Further research, carried out by Lincoln Smith on behalf of the Federal Government, has demonstrated that there are in excess of 1,400 or 1,500 grey nurse sharks. The research also noted that because free divers were used to do the count— scuba divers cause the sharks to make themselves scarce—they were only able to take counts in the aggregation sites to a depth of about 20 metres. From the science, we know that grey nurse sharks aggregate to a depth of around 110 metres.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile raised the committee's recommendation 2, which goes hand in hand with recommendation 15 and supports the motion that the Government should put aside sufficient funds for research into recreational fishing. I note that the Minister is now in the Chamber. I repeat my earlier statement that we have an expectation that the Government will fund this research properly, and that the funds will be provided so the research can be carried out in an efficient and efficacious manner. Dr John Kaye said it appeared that the Shooters and Fishers are science deniers. That is not the case at all. In fact, we say there was very little science involved in the creation of these national parks in New South Wales waters. It is a well-known fact amongst those in the know that New South Wales fisheries management is amongst the best in the world. We concur that New South Wales coastal fisheries are not the best fisheries in the world from a production point of view, because of the narrow shelf and so on. But they have been very well protected over the past 70 years by NSW Fisheries practices, regulation and science.
The science does not appear to be there, because time and again green groups have admitted that really all they want is a percentage figure—20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent. Indeed, during the inquiry a representative from the Nature Conservation Council lamented the fact that the council had ever been involved in producing "The Torn Blue Fringe". The council put clearly on the table what it wanted the Government to do in terms of increasing the percentage of these areas that were protected zones. But the representative let slip during the council's talks with the Federal Government that it was not going to make the same mistake: it was going to ask for 40 per cent protected areas. That would take marine protected areas in Federal waters from seven million square kilometres to 10 million square kilometres. I do not think I need say more in this debate. I thank members for their contributions. Some members' contributions were erudite; others were a gross misrepresentation of the facts. However, I thank all members. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill now be read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 21
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Borsak Mr Khan Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Lynn Tellers, Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mrs Mitchell Dr Phelps
Noes, 18
Ms Barham Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Mr Buckingham Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Ms Cotsis Mr Searle Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Ms Faehrmann Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Foley Mr Shoebridge Mr Moselmane Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Ms Voltz
Pair
Mr Clarke Ms Fazio 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3243
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [12.36 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 on sheet C2011-038G in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 2:
[1] Section 4 Definitions
Insert in alphabetical order in section 4 (1):
moratorium period means:
(a) the period of 5 years commencing on the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011, or
(b) if an order is made under section 48B specifying a shorter period commencing on that commencement, that shorter period.
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 6–8. Omit "period of 5 years commencing on the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011". Insert instead "moratorium period".
No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], lines 11–17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
[3] Section 17B (5) and (6)
Insert after section 17B (4):
(5) A regulation that alters the area of an existing sanctuary zone within a marine park, or that classifies an area within a marine park as a new sanctuary zone, may not be made during the moratorium period.
(6) In this section:
existing sanctuary zone means an area classified as a sanctuary zone by a zoning plan for a marine park that was in force immediately before the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011.
new sanctuary zone means an area of a marine park classified as a zone (of whatever name) by a zoning plan for the marine park if the zoning plan prohibits within that zone the same or substantially the same activities as were prohibited immediately before the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011 within a sanctuary zone for that marine park.
No. 4 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 17:
[4] Sections 48A and 48B
Insert after section 48:
48A Independent scientific audit of marine parks
(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011, the relevant Ministers are to arrange for the carrying out of an independent scientific audit of marine parks.
(2) A written report on the results of the audit is to be given to the relevant Ministers.
48B Moratorium period
(1) The Governor may, by order published on the NSW legislation website, specify a period commencing on the commencement of the Marine Parks Amendment (Moratorium) Act 2011 for the purposes of the definition of moratorium period in section 4 (1).
3244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
(2) An order under this section may be made only on the recommendation of the relevant Ministers.
(3) The relevant Ministers are not to recommend the making of the order unless:
(a) they have considered the report given to them under section 48A and any recommendations contained in the report, and
(b) they have provided a written response to the report that is publicly available.
(4) During the moratorium period:
(a) the Authority must not conduct or continue to conduct any review of a zoning plan for a marine park under section 17D, and
(b) no other action is to be taken under that section in relation to a zoning plan for any marine park.
(5) The regulations may, as a consequence of the operation of subsection (4):
(a) modify the time within which any requirement of section 17D is to be complied with in relation to a zoning plan or class of zoning plans, and
(b) alter the review date under that section for any zoning plan or class of zoning plans.
No. 5 Long title. Omit "expansion". Insert instead "alteration or creation".
I move the five amendments in globo, but I accept that members may not want them all to be put as one question. Members may wish to deal with Government amendment No. 4 separately. These amendments make significant enhancements and improvements to the bill. The amendments define "moratorium period", which will be a period of five years or less if determined by an order made by the Governor. The Governor may only make such an order on the recommendation of the Ministers—I will explain when that may be done later.
The amendments require that an independent scientific audit of marine parks is undertaken as soon as practicable after the commencement of the Marine Parks (Moratorium) Act 2011. To ensure that the outcomes of the audit are progressed, a written report of the audit results is to be given to the responsible Ministers. These changes enshrine in legislation an important element of the Government's recreational fishing policy. The amendments relating to the moratorium first set out the process by which a moratorium period of less than five years may be declared. They provide for a responsible, informed process for specifying a shorter moratorium period.
First, the Ministers must have considered the audit report and any recommendations in the report. Secondly, the Ministers must have provided a written response to a report that is publicly available. Only then may the Ministers recommend the making of an order specifying a shorter moratorium period. On receiving the recommendation the Governor may then make the necessary order. Amendments relating to the moratorium period also put in place important controls on actions permitted during the moratorium period. In particular, they will ensure that no action can be taken relating to the alteration or review of zoning plans during that time. This will prevent actions being taken that compete with the actions the Government decides to take based on the outcomes of the audit.
The Marine Parks Act contains time frames for carrying out zoning plan reviews. These amendments will ensure that those responsible for the statutory reviewing of zoning plans or a class of zoning plans can still comply with the legislative requirements. The amendments provide for the regulations to modify the time in which requirements under section 17D for a zoning plan or class of zoning plans take place during a moratorium period. The regulations may also alter the required review date for any zoning plan or class of zoning plans. These amendments will ensure consistency with the Government's recreational fishing policy to any change to the area of a sanctuary zone during a moratorium period. They also prevent the creation of a sanctuary zone during the moratorium period. The amendments will ensure that during the moratorium period an area of an existing sanctuary zone in a marine park is not altered or any new sanctuary zone is declared. The current wording of the clause in the bill could allow for the size of a sanctuary zone to be decreased.
The Government has identified an important loophole that should be addressed. The current wording of the bill allows new zones to be declared that have similar functions to sanctuary zones but may have a different name. The proposed amendment will prevent this, thus closing the loophole. Ensuring that the size of a sanctuary zone cannot be altered during the moratorium provides certainty for all users and in the management 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3245
of marine parks until the independent scientific audit is completed and the Government's response to the recommendations is made public. The provision is strengthened and given very clear meaning by including definitions for "existing sanctuary zone" and "new sanctuary zone".
These amendments provide for flexibility and responsiveness in relation to the recommendations from the independent scientific audit on marine parks. They ensure that any changes that are required following the completion of and response to the audit can be implemented readily without the necessity of waiting five years to do so. The amendments also close an important loophole and ensure that any further reviews into the zoning arrangements of marine parks are postponed until we have responded to the audit. With these amendments the bill will allow adaptive, flexible and sensible management of marine parks. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [12.42 p.m.]: As I indicated during my speech in reply, the Shooters and Fishers Party will not oppose these amendments. We are not entirely happy with the amendments to the bill. However, we understand that the Government has a requirement for flexibility, particularly given the disallowance of regulation in relation to the Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks. We are aware of differing levels of concern in the fishing communities in relation to Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands. Jervis Bay was seen to be almost suitably complete. Perhaps there was some disquiet that the disallowance related to both Jervis Bay and the Solitary Islands, although the rezoning plan for Jervis Bay included flipping over one of the sanctuary zones that had been put in the wrong area on the basis of so-called science. Given the Government's need for flexibility, the Shooters and Fishers Party does not oppose the amendments.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.43 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Government's amendments moved by the Leader of the House. I acknowledge the Government's election policy to hold an audit of marine parks. These amendments, in part, deal with how that audit will take place. Our criticism of the Government is not about the audit that it committed to. We are heavily critical of the disallowance of the regulation that brought into effect the zoning plan changes to the Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay marine parks. We are critical of the Government in moving today to carry this bill through. We believe it is a deal that has been done between the Government and the Shooters and Fishers Party. It is a clear breach of the Premier's repeated vows that he would not do deals with the minor parties in this place. However, the amendments moved by the Government to the private member's bill will not be opposed by Labor.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [12.45 p.m.]: The Greens seek to move amendments to the Government's amendments. I move Greens amendment No. 1, which has been circulated on a handwritten sheet, to Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] as follows:
Insert after section 48A (2):
(3) A panel be established to oversee the scientific audit in subsection (1) consisting of:
(i) three nominees of the Australian Marine Science Association;
(ii) three nominees of the Marine Parks Authority; and
(iii) an independent chair to be appointed by the Minister.
This amendment will ensure that the independent scientific audit that the Shooters and Fishers Party and, in particular, the Government have been espousing furiously is in fact independent. It will ensure that professional marine scientists will oversee this process so that it does not become a politicised endeavour, which I fear it is becoming. I also have fears about the independent scientific audit, which the Minister for Roads and Ports has talked so highly about. However, prior to the election he referred to the science behind marine parks as voodoo science. I fear that the independent scientific audit referred to in the Government's amendments will be a political event and will not have the expertise of marine scientists that has fed into the information placed before the New South Wales Government, the government's assessment of marine parks to date and the creation of marine parks.
I fear that good marine scientists will not want to participate in the scientific audit. Hundreds of scientists have signed consensus statements and written articles and letters, which have been sent to all politicians, particularly primary industries Ministers, at both State and Federal levels, that our marine environment is in a great deal of trouble. I am worried that no scientists are left that the Government would agree to participate in the audit. Given that the Minister has called the science behind marine parks voodoo science, I wonder whether any scientist with the relevant expertise would want to participate in this audit. 3246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
Marine scientists in New South Wales who want to join a professional organisation probably become members of the Australian Marine Sciences Association. The association has a New South Wales branch. Marine scientists who respect their profession and want to keep up to date on the latest research on marine science would join the Australian Marine Sciences Association.
It is like a doctor would be part of the Australian Medical Association. The other three nominees are to come from the Marine Parks Authority. That is a body of the Government, which has been in the past, and let us hope it will be in the future, given the job of reviewing the zoning plans of marine parks, researching marine parks, providing information to marine park users, and providing fact sheets and information to recreational fishers and other marine park users. It is the body that we hope will be reviewing marine parks and the science in the future. We also want the Minister to be able to appoint an independent chair. I urge the Committee to support the amendment. I move Greens amendment No. 2, which has been circulated on a handwritten sheet, to Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] as follows:
No. 4 Page 2 as follows:
Insert after "Minister" in section 48A (2) the words "and forthwith made publicly available by the relevant Ministers".
This amendment simply ensures that the written report on the results of the audit that is given to the relevant Ministers is made publicly available. In the spirit of transparency this should be an acceptable amendment and I urge the Committee to support it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [12.51 p.m.]: The Government is willing to support Greens amendment No. 2. We think it is a sensible amendment and worthy of support. We cannot support Greens amendment No. 1 because, contrary to the comments of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann, we believe that this panel must remain entirely independent. We have accepted some very good nominations from organisations that have been mentioned, but rather than have The Greens dictate who should be on the panel—
The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: We are not dictating.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We believe in the science. The concern we had in the past was the interpretation placed on it by the previous Government. It became voodoo science when the Government did not rely on science. We have appointed Professor Bob Beeton as the independent chair, who I am sure all honourable members will acknowledge is well respected across all areas of the environment and fisheries. He is fiercely independent.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [12.53 p.m.]: I also support Greens amendment No. 2. It is a sensible amendment. I cannot support Greens amendment No. 1 mostly for the reasons outlined by the Minister. If members will cast their minds back, the report called up by the Government in the recreational fishing inquiry, the independent scientific review, was an independent review at the time. The custodian of the independent scientific review was the Marine Parks Authority. Members of the Marine Parks Authority cannot sit on an independent review panel for which they are ultimately responsible and which may, as in the case of the review I just mentioned, criticise the science as it stands. That review stands today and the criticism is there. I will not discuss whether I think three persons from the Australian Marine Services Association should or should not be on the panel. I agree with the Minister's assertion that it must be a truly independent panel and that there just cannot be members of the Marine Parks Authority on it.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [12.54 p.m.]: The Opposition supports Greens amendment No. 2. We will not support Greens amendment No. 1. I understand the intent behind the amendment; however, the Government's policy is to have an audit. It is the Government's audit and it is entitled to appoint who it likes to conduct an audit. We believe the Coalition parties have a clear agenda to wind back marine conservation in this State. We oppose that and we will continue to oppose it. The Government can stand or fall on its audit—who conducts it and what it comes up with. We will continue to oppose attacks on marine conservation by this Government. It has appointed Professor Beeton, but if we get into an argument about who else ought to be on the panel there may be arguments put that people from the fishing community or the fishing industry should be on it. It is not a debate we will enter into today. The Government has made its bed about the audit; it can conduct its audit and lie in its bed. We will continue to oppose its attacks on marine conservation.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.55 p.m.]: I support Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2, and I endorse the comments of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann in relation to them. In relation to Greens amendment No. 1, if the purpose of the audit is to be a scientific review, having that kind of high-level scientific oversight of it from some of the 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3247
most esteemed marine science minds in the nation would obviously be a sensible protection to ensure that the audit that is finally undertaken is the best it can be. It appears clear that Greens amendment No. 2 will have the support of the majority of members of the House, and we are glad to see that commitment to transparency.
The Government's amendments have been circulated at very short notice to the crossbenches and to The Greens. There is real concern about how they will work in practice. In particular, Government amendment No. 4 inserts new sections 48A and 48B in relation to the audit and the moratorium period. The provision that appears to create the greatest practical difficulty in the short time that we have had to review these amendments is new section 48B (4), which states:
During the moratorium period:
(a) The authority must not conduct or continue or continue to conduct any review of a zoning plan for a marine park under section 17D, and
(b) no other action is to be taken under that section in relation to a zoning plan for any marine park.
This blanket stopping of any review or consideration of any zoning plan for a marine park is not explained by the bill. In fact, quite often recreational or commercial fishers ask for reviews of zoning plans for marine parks, as much as environmentalists ask for reviews of zoning plans, because there are elements of the marine environment that are dynamic and there will be changing scientific evidence in relation to it. This blanket ban on any review appears to be ill thought out. There is further concern that if the moratorium stays in place for any length of time the reviews of all of the marine parks will be required to be done at once when the moratorium is lifted. It would be an impossible task for the authority to deal with a series of reviews at once. So there are real practical difficulties with the amendments proposed by the Government. That being said, the amendments are a marginal improvement on the original bill of the Shooters and Fishers Party and for that reason they will not be opposed by The Greens.
Question—That Government amendments Nos 1 to 3 [C2011-038G] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendments Nos 1 to 3 [C2011-038G] agreed to.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): The Deputy Leader of the Government has moved Government amendment No. 4, to which The Greens have moved two amendments—Greens amendment No. 1 and Greens amendment No. 2 as circulated.
Question—That Greens amendment No. 1 of Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Greens amendment No. 1 of Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] negatived.
Question—That Greens amendment No. 2 of Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Greens amendment No. 2 of Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] agreed to.
Question—That Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 4 [C2011-038G] as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Question—That Government amendment No. 5 [C2011-038G] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 5 [C2011-038G] agreed to.
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments, including an amended title. 3248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [1.05 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 20
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mrs Mitchell Mr Blair Mr Green Reverend Nile Mr Borsak Mr Khan Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Mr Lynn Mr Pearce Ms Ficarra Mr MacDonald Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps
Noes, 17
Ms Barham Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Mr Buckingham Mr Moselmane Ms Westwood Ms Cotsis Mr Primrose Mr Whan Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Tellers Ms Faehrmann Ms Sharpe Ms Fazio Mr Foley Mr Shoebridge Ms Voltz
Pairs
Mr Clarke Mr Roozendaal Ms Cusack Mr Searle
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
[The President left the chair at 1.11 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
ILLAWARRA REPRESENTATION
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Given that the Minister asked many questions of the then Minister for the Illawarra in 2010 covering issues as varied as employment, infrastructure development, local government elections and the Wollongong courthouse, why does he refuse to answer questions on important matters for the people of the Illawarra now that he is the Minister? 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3249
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I take great pleasure in answering questions on the Illawarra because I am very interested in the Illawarra. I am a fantastic advocate for the people of the Illawarra. I stand up for the people who live in the Illawarra. I do not put corrupt local councils in place. I do not ignore the people and take them for granted the way the Labor Party did for 16 years. I am very popular in the Illawarra.
NATION BUILDING—ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN HOUSING PROJECTS
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister please update the House on housing projects in New South Wales funded by the Federal Government under the Nation Building—Economic Stimulus Plan?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: In 2009 the Federal Government, as part of its economic stimulus plan, announced with much fanfare a social housing package worth $5.6 billion—consisting of $5.2 billion for the construction of new dwellings and $400 million for repairs to existing dwellings. The national program was to assist low-income Australians who are homeless or struggling to enter the private rental market. In New South Wales 502 projects were earmarked for 6,330 new properties costing more than $1.8 billion. But, as usual with Labor, it is all about the announcement. It dropped the ball when it came to delivery. For those not familiar with the delivery of housing projects under the stimulus plan I advise that the Federal Government provides the funding to the State Government, which then delivers the projects. The previous Labor Government tasked the delivery of the projects to Housing NSW. Housing NSW entered into contracts with 137 builders and project managers to construct the properties, and these builders employed subcontractors to assist in the construction phase. It all sounds straight forward.
However, since becoming Minister for Finance and Services I have been approached by numerous worried contractors, subcontractors and local members of Parliament. I have received hundreds of letters raising concerns about the housing projects being undertaken under the Rudd-Gillard economic stimulus plan. Because of Rudd and Gillard's thirst for a good news story on the economic stimulus plan, Labor imposed unrealistic time frames for the projects. Housing NSW's financial assessment of builders was not rigorous. Contracts were entered into with builders and project management companies who had poor financials. Under the contracts, payments were made by Housing NSW direct to builders. However, the money was not always passed on to the subcontractors—everyday honest tradespeople. In the worst cases the builder became insolvent halfway through the project, leaving hundreds of subcontractors and other suppliers out of pocket for work already completed. In a number of cases the project remains unfinished.
For months, these honest tradespeople and small businesses have been pushed to the wall by yet another wasteful, mismanaged, ill-conceived Rudd-Gillard stimulus stream train. It is another Building the Education Revolution; it is more Pink Bats. It is clear the financial assessments carried out by Housing NSW on some companies were completely inadequate. Furthermore, Housing NSW failed to properly assess or monitor these projects. Even when subcontractors rang and told that agency they were in trouble and that they were not being paid, nothing was done. They were ignored. The pressure from the Federal Government to deliver the projects led to unrealistic time frames, overambitious deadlines, more red tape and endless reams of paperwork. It resulted in a skills shortage, especially for bricklayers.
The time frames were so unrealistic that if they did not finish before Christmas, they were penalised with liquidated damages. This was all geared for Labor's spin machine, which was keen on making announcements rather than delivering the projects. Builders were ripped off. Even when Housing NSW knew they were in trouble it kept throwing money at the insolvent companies instead of directing the money to the people who had carried out the work. Subcontractors are out of pocket and the money has gone. This is at a time when housing is less affordable than ever and ordinary people in New South Wales are on waiting lists for a home, some living rough on the streets of Sydney while they wait—and they wait.
PACIFIC HIGHWAY EROSION
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, and relates to the construction of the Pacific Highway bypass at Coffs Harbour. Is the Minister aware of complaints by local fishermen that the apparently inadequate sediment control protocols implemented by the Roads and Traffic Authority at that worksite—particularly under the unusual high rainfall occurrences—are currently allowing thousands of tonnes of sediment to be flushed into the ocean off Coffs Harbour and their concern about the impact it could have on local fisheries? Is it a fact that this is the fourth such incident in the 3250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
last 12 months? Will the Minister have the Roads and Traffic Authority review its sediment control protocols at the bypass and, if necessary, make sure they are immediately upgraded to handle any further high rainfall events?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for this very good question.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Opposition members really do need a question time committee, don't they?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They do need a question time committee. Thankfully, we get good questions from members on the crossbenches—or at least from some of them. In a former life I was the shadow Minister for Fisheries—
The Hon. Luke Foley: For 28 years.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Some members spend their lives in the Labor Party, whereas others have real-life experiences. Some of us are experienced, while others—like the members of the Labor Party—have been found out and dispatched to the dustbin of time by the people of New South Wales. But I should not be distracted by members opposite, who are trying to lead me astray. This is an important question and I am more than happy to come back to it because I have learnt that last night Senator Steve Hutchins said in his valedictory speech in the Federal Parliament—
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Hon. Robert Brown asked a very specific question about concerns that fishermen had raised about sediment and the roads on the mid North Coast. The Minister should answer that question and not try to slur the Labor Party with completely irrelevant material.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There has been a barrage of noise from the Opposition benches during question time. I have not yet called any members to order. However, I remind the Minister and all members of the House that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Minister should not respond to interjections. The Minister should abide by the standing orders as he answers the question.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you, Mr President. The temptation is always there, but I will ignore the Phil Spector Wall of Sound that emanates from the other side. I will return to the question, because it is an important question. As I was saying, in my former capacity as the shadow Minister for Primary Industries, which included matters related to agriculture and fisheries, I was aware that one of the key threatening issues in the State is that related to land use—terrestrial issues. It is not so much about what happens so far as water is concerned.
The Hon. Robert Brown: There has been an inquiry about that too.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Certainly there has been an inquiry about that. It is about planning, stormwater, farming practices, acid soils, fertiliser, and about runoff and sedimentation. I have got to say that I did not give the matter any thought until the member just raised it, and having regard to the volume of rain that was experienced in that area, which caused the Pacific Highway to be closed for five days, that is certainly a possibility. I will have the matter investigated and provide the member with a detailed answer. We all know about the improvements that are ongoing on the Pacific Highway, and we are all keen for them to continue, but we must ensure that they are implemented responsibly—although on occasion our ability to manage that improvement is hampered by the volume of water— [Time expired.]
WOLLONGONG COURTHOUSE
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Can the Minister give the community of Wollongong and the Illawarra an assurance that Wollongong courthouse does not pose risks from fire, accidental discharge of weapons and public safety breaches?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will refer the question to the Attorney General.
SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Can the Minister for Roads and Ports please update the House on school zone safety? 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3251
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for this important question. I know the Hon. Walt Secord—who was not given a good rap last night by Senator Steve Hutchins—will be interested in my answer. Lollypop people, or school crossing supervisors, are an essential element in the overall school zone safety program, which includes school zones, new fluorescent signs, flashing lights and dragon's teeth. The school crossing supervisor program involves lollypop people working on school crossings to make—
The Hon. Luke Foley: You'd make a superb lollypop man.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I aspire to be someone that good, but I doubt that the Leader of the Opposition could meet the criteria. Lollypop people help young unaccompanied primary school children to cross our roads safely. There are more than 1,000 of these vitally important lollypop people involved at more than 730 school crossing sites around the State. The Government spends around $12 million annually on this integral part of its school road safety program. The people employed in this program take child road safety very seriously and are committed to keeping our young people safe.
The outstanding commitment of school crossing supervisors is exemplified by Jenny Bell, who has worked for 21 years as a school crossing supervisor at the crossing on Merrylands Road for Greystanes Public School. That is a damn fine achievement. Jenny has been the guardian of children crossing this busy road and has shown remarkable dedication to ensuring their safety. I have been impressed by her story and I commend Jenny for her unwavering dedication to the protection of our most precious resource—our children.
I spoke with Jenny yesterday and thanked her for her 21 years of service to New South Wales. I can also report that Jenny has been nominated for a Roads and Traffic Authority staff award as a result of her ongoing dedication to that organisation and to the children of western Sydney. Unfortunately my phone call to Jenny was cut short because I had to come to the Chamber to take part in yet another division imposed on us by The Greens. However, during the conversation I learnt that Jenny's husband also works for the Roads and Traffic Authority as a heavy vehicle inspector based at Wagga Wagga. The Hon. Mick Veitch, who lives in Young, would be pleased to know that Jenny and her husband are moving down to that area; they have bought a block of land on the Crowther Road upon which they are going to build a house in which to live. Well done to Jenny for a fabulous job. I was disappointed that I had to cut the phone call short because of the actions of The Greens. I will report back to Jenny that The Greens were not apologetic about that—not that they ever are.
I am pleased to report that no fatality has occurred in a school zone during school zone times since December 2006. This is in major part thanks to the measures that have been implemented by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the hard work of lollypop ladies like Jenny Bell. School zones are there to keep our children safe and there is no excuse for motorists to speed through a school zone. I ask all motorists to slow down in school zones. Dangerous driving can cost a child's life in the blink of an eye.
AGL SUGARLOAF COAL SEAM GAS EXTRACTION
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Greg Pearce, representing the Minister for the Environment.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is going on?
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The Deputy Leader of the Government has got a day off today. I am showing mercy. I ask the Minister the following question. On 27 May, in response to a question about a well blowout incident at AGL's Sugarloaf 3 coal seam gas well, the Minister advised the House that an interagency investigation is being conducted into the incident. Can the Minister inform the House whether the investigation has concluded, what actions other than speaking to AGL did government agencies take in investigating the incident, and will any findings be made public?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for the question. Just by coincidence, I actually did follow up on that matter before question time today because I was very interested to do so. I regularly follow up on issues that are raised with me. I am sure by the end of question time I will be able to give you a detailed answer. You see, I actually am quite happy to do the work that I am required to do, unlike the member who asked the question, who was reported yesterday in the Daily Telegraph as complaining about how hard it was working here—
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: The fact that I am not seeing my family very often because of the— 3252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
[Interruption]
Well, it has been hard work dealing with this rabble opposite. What the Minister is alluding to has nothing to do with AGL's coal seam gas blowout and I would ask you, Mr President, to direct the member to answer the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his answers.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I have to say it was quite extraordinary to read about his heartfelt absences from home. I want to do whatever I can to make life as comfortable as possible for the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham when he is at Parliament and make sure that the hours are not too much for him. Perhaps he could consider giving up his second job on the council if it is too hard for him and if it is too much trouble—
The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: The member asked about the AGL blowout. What was in the Daily Telegraph yesterday is irrelevant to that question. I would ask you to ask the member to be directly relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. If the Minister has no additional material to provide the House on the AGL matter, he should resume his seat.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Thank you, Mr President. I do have more material, as I said at the beginning of the answer. The incident referred to was one in which soapy liquid emissions were noticed at an AGL coal seam gas well site. I am advised that this was caused as a result of AGL using a soap surfactant—
[Interruption]
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham seems to know all about it. I do not know why he asks me a question if he already knows the answer. As I said, I am advised that this was caused as a result of AGL using a soap surfactant, which helps clear the well hole and stimulate gas flow, as part of AGL's regular maintenance activities. By way of background, the existing AGL gas collection and treatment system was approved by the former New South Wales Department of Planning in several stages under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
This system also holds an environment protection licence issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage which contains conditions to protect the environment. This licence, No. 12003 for the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham's reference, is publicly available on the website of the Office of Environment and Heritage. As I advised in my earlier answer, an interagency investigation is being conducted into the well maintenance activity. The relevant agencies involved are the Office of Environment and Heritage, the Sydney Catchment Authority, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services. [Time expired.]
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I would be delighted to do so, because the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has obviously worked very hard on this question. He is a very hard worker. I am advised that officers from the Office of Environment and Heritage, the Sydney Catchment Authority, and the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services met with AGL regarding the incident and inspected the site on 1 June 2011. Following this meeting and inspection, the Office of Environment and Heritage wrote to AGL requesting detailed information on the nature, frequency and impacts of the practice and measures in place to protect the environment. The Office of Environment and Heritage also attended the AGL Community Consultative Committee meeting on 16 June 2011. I ask the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham whether he went to that meeting.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: No; I was busy.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is always too busy. At that meeting the incident was discussed as a specific agenda item. This committee is convened regularly by AGL and is independently chaired. I will try to get the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham an invitation to go to the next meeting, or 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3253
perhaps he could send one of his colleagues if he is too busy. The Office of Environment and Heritage responded to questions from community and local council representatives attending this meeting in relation to the incident. I am advised that no waterway was affected by the emission. The nearest waterway to the well site is located 200 metres away; it is a water canal operated by the Sydney Catchment Authority.
At the time of the event the canal was empty. There are also culverts and diversions at this location that protect the water supply channel and prevent any surface water overflows into it. I am advised that the investigation is still underway. The Office of Environment and Heritage informs me that the further, more detailed information requested from AGL is expected to be received by 27 June 2011. This information will be carefully considered by the interagency group in determining an appropriate regulatory response to the incident. No doubt I will be able to give the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham further information on another occasion. [Time expired.]
ILLAWARRA MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. What action will the Minister take to improve mental health facilities at Wollongong Hospital?
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You should be leader. That's a leader's question.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Admit him! Sacred leader! Dear leader!
[Interruption]
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No more of that Canadian seal pup bashing. I suppose it is any seal pup, is it not? Seal pups really bleed my heart. I was going to welcome the Hon. Steve Whan and say to him: We wish you every opportunity and all of the time that we had in opposition. We want you to enjoy every moment of it. We trust that you will have at least the opportunity, as people such as the Hon. Duncan Gay had over 16 years in opposition, to ask all the questions you like. As to mental health facilities in the Illawarra—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Records are here to be broken.
The Hon. Luke Foley: He'd have to work very hard to beat your length of time in opposition.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is right, 10 years. But we wish the Hon. Steve Whan every opportunity to ask all the questions he likes. We are very impressed by the research of members opposite on my questions when I was shadow Minister for the Illawarra. They were reeling them out one after the other. What great research. Mental health is a very serious issue. In fact, even though it is not my portfolio responsibility, this morning I had a meeting with the chief of staff of the Minister for Health to discuss this issue and other health issues. I have arranged a meeting with the chair of the area health service; I am not sure of the date of the meeting. Mental health will be one of the issues I will raise. I will tell the Hon. Steve Whan more about it when I have had that meeting.
SURF LIFE SAVING NSW
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the Government's commitment to providing additional resources to Surf Life Saving NSW and how the resources are likely to be used?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: In the lead-up to the last election the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals made a commitment to implement a $12 million water safety policy aimed at saving lives lost each year as a result of drowning. A key component of this plan was providing an additional $4 million in funding to surf life saving clubs through Surf Life Saving NSW. This additional funding will be targeted towards improving club facilities and enhancing life saving capabilities. I am sure I do not need to explain to members the extraordinary contribution Surf Life Saving NSW makes to our State each patrol season. But for the record here are just a few statistics which highlight its efforts during the 2010-11 patrol season which lasted from 25 September 2010 until 26 April 2011. Some 8.5 million people visited New South Wales beaches over the 2010-11 season.
Around 20,000 volunteer surf lifesavers from 129 surf clubs patrolled more than 200 beaches across the State, from Fingal Head in the north to Pambula Beach in the south. They contributed more than 500,000 hours 3254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
on patrol over the season. More than 7,000 rescues and 150,000 preventative actions were performed, and more than 28,000 cases of first aid were administered. The Surf Rescue Emergency Response System, which enables the rapid deployment of lifesavers and lifeguards in high-risk circumstances after a request for assistance is received, was particularly effective during 2010-11. I am advised that people were successfully rescued from a range of circumstances—including dangerous rip currents, rock platforms and upturned boats—thanks to rapid deployment.
And the contribution made by Surf Life Saving NSW does not end there. Outside the surf season, education programs, and first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] courses continue to be run in schools and the community. For example, Surf Life Saving NSW delivers training programs through the Australian Lifesaving Academy NSW, its registered training organisation. The education and training services offered by the Australian Lifesaving Academy New South Wales can be broken down as follows: member training, commercial training and community education.
Since its inception the academy has trained more than 123,000 community members in essential life saving skills. This includes training around 50,000 people in CPR and over 44,000 people in first aid. Surf Life Saving NSW describes its key aim as being to supply services that minimise danger and prevent loss of life or injury to beach users in a beach and aquatic environment. As we can see from the statistics I have shared today, this aim is continually being met. I extend my thanks to all the members of this fantastic organisation for the important work they do for our State and nation; indeed, I have often witnessed it firsthand. I look forward to updating the House on future successes.
SHARED SPACE SPEED LIMITS
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Is the Minister aware that shared spaces, with substantially reduced speed limits for certain local roads in central business districts of between 10 kilometres per hour and 40 kilometres per hour, are increasingly being used in other cities around the world to encourage cycling and walking? There are many examples: in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. Will the Government's review of speed limits include an assessment of shared spaces and possible speed limits that encourage safe cycling and walking? Will supporting safe cycling and walking be a key criterion for the review?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for her question and remind her once again that we are meeting tomorrow morning.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: On the bikes?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, but we will be looking at the bikes. I have reassured people that I will not be in lycra. I hear expressions of disappointment across the Chamber but, sadly, I will not be doing the lycra thing tomorrow.
The Hon. Luke Foley: A few people have just fainted in the gallery.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am sure that they have. The member asked about the provision of shared spaces with 10 to 40 kilometre speed limits, which is a good question. We are not addressing that issue in our speed limit review; the review will be addressing existing speed limits on main roads. However, it does not mean that that issue will not be addressed in the future. We must ensure that everyone respects others and knows who has right of way in shared spaces. Cyclists using shared spaces include elderly people, young people and children and sometimes they do not adhere to the rules. I do not believe that enough of the time of the House has been devoted to the policies of The Greens, in particular, the policy that was issued before the last State election.
The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. My question was about shared spaces on New South Wales roads and whether the current review of speed limits would be considering that issue. My question had nothing to do with Greens policy. I ask that the Minister be brought back to the leave of the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The member forgot to mention in her point of order the other part of her question relating to cycles. The Greens may be embarrassed about it now but someone used a calculator to 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3255
establish the cost of implementing their policy. Five per cent of the total budget for roads and transport would be spent on cycleways, which amounts to $232 million per adult. When that figure is multiplied by four—the four years of a parliamentary term—The Greens policy for new bikeways in New South Wales would cost close to $1 billion, which is enough to construct a cycleway between Sydney and Wellington. I am not referring to Wellington in the central west of New South Wales but to Wellington in New Zealand. That is why the Hon. Cate Faehrmann did not want any mention made of that Greens policy.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: If you were riding bikes in Wellington you would be freezing.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I know. That is all I have to say in answer to the question.
ILLAWARRA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for the Illawarra. In light of the Government's proposed Hunter Infrastructure Fund, will the Minister commit to developing an Illawarra Infrastructure Fund?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The member is asking for a statement of government policy, which is out of order. The Government is currently going through the budgetary process. When the Government brings down its budget in September, Opposition members will become aware of its policies for the whole State.
YOUNG PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I address my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on how the Roads and Traffic Authority and New South Wales Maritime support young professionals?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: A question such as that is why I rate the Hon. John Ajaka as the best Parliamentary Secretary I have ever had. As the President indicated earlier, today we are joined in the gallery—
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are playing to the gallery.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, I am playing to the gallery. Today we are joined in the gallery by a number of young professionals from the Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW Maritime. They are part of a great initiative called the Young Professionals Network. The network is a program within the Roads and Traffic Authority which allows young people to collaborate with their peers and to interact and learn from senior managers within the organisation.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the Minister's answer. I am sure those in the gallery cannot hear the answer either.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The program is about helping to develop the next generation of public servants in this State. The program, which is proudly supported by the current Government, was an initiative of the former Government. The network comprises more than 400 staff from the Roads and Traffic Authority. About 20 per cent of Roads and Traffic Authority employees are under the age of 35. Many of these young professionals come from a number of entry-level programs such as apprenticeships, traineeships, scholarships, cadetships, paraprofessional programs and, of course, the graduate program. Some of these programs provide financial assistance to students, while others provide on-the-job training to students who study through university, TAFE or other registered training organisations. Members of the Young Professionals Network have the opportunity to take part in a range of activities such as informal networking and professional development events, as well as discussions on issues affecting the Roads and Traffic Authority and young professionals.
Similarly, young professionals from NSW Maritime comprise about 25 per cent of the workforce. Maritime employees take part in events such as the Institute of Public Administration Young Professionals Breakfast, at which NSW Maritime sponsors a table. This year, through its annual traineeship program, NSW Maritime will accept an intake of 16 trainees to work in a range of areas, including customer service, finance, human resources, property, administration and operations, with the opportunity to train and obtain qualifications during the year. The New South Wales Government is proud—as no doubt are Opposition and crossbench members—of the young professionals in the public service. 3256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
The Government wants to develop the public service and ensure that young professionals have a clear career path with opportunities for development. The New South Wales public service should be the best in Australia; a leading light in the management of this State. To this end, young professionals should be supported in their endeavours. The Government wants to foster their new and innovative ideas, not stifle them. I thank them for their hard work and efforts to make New South Wales number one again, and I welcome them to the New South Wales Parliament. Today I have talked about the young but I probably need also to talk about the not so young. Today is an important milestone in this Parliament: one of our treasured people has reached the last day before he gets his superannuation.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: The Minister has spoilt what was a good answer to a good question, acknowledging the young people coming through the Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW Maritime. The Minister should not spoil that very proper answer by straying into irrelevant matters and seeking to go after a member who is not even present in the Chamber this afternoon.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There was some substance to the point of order but I am afraid the Minister's time has expired.
FRINGE BENEFITS TAX
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Local Government. The Federal Government has introduced a flat 20 per cent fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles that will be phased in over a four-year period. The new fringe benefit tax rate is expected to have considerable impact on local councils. For example, after the four-year phase-in period it will cost Shoalhaven City Council an additional $520,000 per annum, less what the council is able to recover from additional payments from staff with leaseback agreements. What consideration has the Minister given to this cost on local government and what will the Government do to assist local councils?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Paul Green for his question and note his continued interest in the local government sector. In particular, I note that the nature of his question relates to services and staffing matters, unlike the question from Mr David Shoebridge, whose only concern is for high pay rises for his Green councillor mates. I will take the question on notice and obtain an answer from the Minister.
ILLAWARRA EMPLOYMENT
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister give the people of the Illawarra a commitment that his Government will address job security in the Illawarra? What action will he take to do so?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Over the past four years I have been committed to doing everything I can to assist the people of the Illawarra with economic growth and jobs. I refer to the record of the Opposition when it was in government. It drove the Illawarra to levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, that are the highest in the country. That is Labor's contribution. Those opposite created youth unemployment that is the highest in the country. They had no programs to assist employment growth in the Illawarra. They drove the rest of the State to the position where we are the last State according to almost every economic measure. This Government has a range of policies that we have announced. I suggest the Hon. Steve Whan does some research to find out what they are.
NATION BUILDING—ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN HOUSING PROJECTS
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Could the Minister outline what the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is doing to fix New South Wales and Federal Labor's housing projects mess in New South Wales, funded by the Federal Government under the Nation Building—Economic Stimulus Plan?
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The question contains within it elements that are clearly argumentative. The question is out of order.
The Hon. David Clarke: It refers to the Federal Government's mess.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is accurate. It is not argumentative. 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3257
The Hon. Luke Foley: It is argumentative.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the Hon. Luke Foley contributing to the point of order?
The Hon. Luke Foley: To the point of order: I refer to Standing Order 65 (1) (b). The question contains argument.
The PRESIDENT: Order! One word in the question could be said to be argumentative. However, that is not enough for me to rule the question out of order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Honest tradies and small businesses have been burnt by the Rudd-Gillard stimulus steam train. I am concerned that there are potentially thousands more. More people who cannot afford to go to the wall, more people who have carried out work diligently and honestly who have not or may not be paid. In response to the hundreds of representations I have received, I have undertaken a preliminary investigation into the New South Wales projects yet to be completed under the program. It was clear from my initial briefings with Housing NSW that I was not given all the information I needed, so I took steps to investigate the matter myself.
My investigation of the 57 incomplete projects has uncovered hundreds of subcontractors and small businesses that have not been paid by those builders that had contracts with Housing NSW. I have uncovered cost overruns already totalling $12 million on these incomplete projects. I have uncovered months and months of delays. Some sites are already more than a year overdue. Across all 57 sites, the cumulative delay totals 26 years. In Wollongong a site due to finish in April 2010 sits empty, still only half complete. Work has ceased on the site and subbies are unpaid. I have also uncovered and identified still more companies in trouble, builders who are on life support from Housing NSW. Some are surviving only because of support from the local community, which has come together to nurse them through to completion of work. I am not prepared to let this continue.
With the support of the Minister for Community Services, I am taking action on this now. I am moving the implementation of all remaining projects away from Housing NSW and into Public Works. I am providing professional assistance to the remaining projects to see that this housing disaster is turned around. Public Works will provide the proper framework, the expertise and the project management skills that this program desperately needs. It will focus on delivery of the remaining projects. Its aim will be to maximise value and minimise the cost and delay blowouts that have characterised this steam train of Labor mismanagement. These steps will ensure that we properly manage risks in the remaining capital works programs.
I understand that a number of insolvent companies are under forms of administration. They have had receivers or liquidators appointed. Where such an administration arrangement is in place, we are bound by the provisions of the Corporations Act and must allow those professionals to manage the affairs of the individual building companies. I have instructed Housing NSW to work with these administrators, but I cannot interfere in that process or give assurances to individual creditors who are left out of pocket. As we all know, there simply is not the money to pay out every creditor. These people are the latest victims of Labor's financial mismanagement. Once again, we are mopping up Labor's mess. This is why the voters of this State delivered the Coalition the biggest electoral swing in history. This Government is concerned about unpaid subcontractors and unpaid small businesses. Those on the other side are a shameful bunch. They created this mess and they do not take it seriously. They attack unpaid subbies and unpaid small businesses. They are a disgrace.
BYRILL CREEK DAM
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. What steps has the New South Wales Office of Water taken to ensure that the complete range of low-cost, demand-side options, including water efficiency, local grey water recycling and rainwater tanks, have been fully exploited to ensure water supply security for the Tweed shire before the Byrrill Creek dam proposal is developed further?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Dr John Kaye's question has numerous parts.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: We will sit here for an hour.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will get to the exciting part in a moment. The Hon. Greg Donnelly cannot wait because it is a special day—Eric has reached his last day of Parliament before he is entitled to his superannuation. 3258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Where is Eric?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He has been listed as a pair because he is attending a family function. I have no criticism of him not being here. I will refer this important question to the Minister for a detailed answer. Given this is an important day, the Government would like to be generous to the member. When people reach their superannuation day, they are generally presented with a gold watch or a plaque. We have been able to do that, so—
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: Once again, my point of order relates to relevance. Dr John Kaye asked a serious question about dams and water policy for the Tweed shire. The Minister for Roads and Ports started with a serious answer and is now straying into irrelevance—and, I suspect, cannot resist being a smart alec. I suggest that he answer the question and remain relevant, and not proceed with what he was about to do.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: The Leader of the Opposition unfairly accuses me of having improper motives. In an act of generosity for a Treasurer that has kept this State on time, we cannot afford a gold watch, but we have a silver clock to present to him to celebrate the fact that he has reached his majority.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his answer. If he has no further relevant material to add, he should resume his seat so that other members may ask questions.
PORT KEMBLA ILLEGAL BROTHELS
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. What action will the Minister take to address the issue of illegal brothels in Port Kembla?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is here. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane could have directed that question to him.
SYDNEY WATER EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on Sydney Water's entry-level programs for its employees?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for her question. As usual, it is a very well thought-through question. I inform the House that Sydney Water has a corporate goal of building a capable and committed workforce. Entry-level programs are major initiatives to bring new generations of talented employees into the organisation. These programs include the Graduate Program, the Apprenticeships and Traineeships Program, and the Industry Experience Program. Sydney Water has won a number of awards, which shows that its programs are working. In 2010 Sydney Water won an award for best talent management strategy and was also named in the top 10 Dream Employers Survey, with the likes of Google, Virgin and Apple.
The Sydney Water Graduate Program is a three-year development program that offers each person a range of personal and professional development opportunities. Graduates come from a range of disciplines, including design, natural resource management, business/commerce and engineering. The program gives graduates a range of opportunities to learn from experts and to develop a greater understanding of the water industry. Opportunities for graduates include roles that are field based or office based; project management and construction activities; and maintenance of assets. In fact, I am pleased to welcome to the gallery from Sydney Water Michelle Guido, who is in her second year of the Sydney Water Graduate Program.
Another program that Sydney Water runs as part of its strategy to build skills for the future is its Apprenticeships and Traineeships Program. The program offers apprentices and trainees the opportunity to gain formal qualifications while learning on the job. Apprentices and trainees are given opportunities to gain qualifications and experience in the water industry by working in a range of areas, including building and construction, customer service, business administration, mechanical maintenance and water operations. The 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3259
program helps to develop future career paths for many apprentices and trainees, and build the skills required. This was illustrated by Sydney Water trainee Rachel Cowin, who won the New South Wales Group Training Association's Trainee of the Year award in 2010—a great achievement.
Sydney Water also provides an Industry Experience Program for individuals seeking on-the-job practical experience while they are studying at university or TAFE. This program provides three- to 12-month work experience opportunities to potential employees whose ideas and skills could contribute to the future of the organisation. The program provides potential candidates for Sydney Water the opportunity to undertake other entry-level programs or to fill business positions once a qualification is gained. It also provides students with an opportunity to gain skills from short-term projects and it assists students in identifying possible career paths. As illustrated, Sydney Water entry-level programs help to identify talent that can be brought into the organisation. Graduates, trainees, apprentices and students gain a diverse range of skills and knowledge, and develop networks across Sydney Water and the water industry.
CARBON TAX
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that, according to Professor Garnaut's Climate Change Review, Australia's share of the world's greenhouse gas emissions will reduce with no mitigation efforts from 1.5 per cent in 2005 to 1.1 per cent by 2030 and to 1 per cent by 2100, and that already, as at 2008, Australia's total share is only 1.35 per cent? In view of Australia's very low level of carbon greenhouse gas emissions, can a Federal carbon tax ever be justified, and what impact will such an unnecessary Federal carbon tax have on the economy, families and jobs in New South Wales?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for, as usual, a very good question. His question seeks information, unlike the questions asked by members on the other side of the House. I can tell the honourable member and others who are interested—certainly members on this side of the House are interested—that Treasury is presently working on the likely impacts of a carbon tax on New South Wales. Of course, like everyone else, we are currently in the dark because the Federal Labor Government cannot manage or deliver anything. But there are a number of issues that people should be aware of. The first is the cost of living.
We know that, if the Federal Labor Party and its Greens coalition partners proceed with the sort of tax they are talking about, it will put more pressure on the cost of living. In New South Wales during the past 15 years the cost of services provided by the New South Wales Government has grown faster than the consumer price index. Since 1995 electricity costs have risen by 127.1 per cent, water bills by 89.45 per cent, hospital and medical services by 99 per cent, and utilities by 120.4 per cent. This Government opposes the carbon tax. It is interesting to note the impact of the carbon tax in New Zealand. The current Labor Prime Minister—Labor Prime Ministers last about a year and a bit—has trumpeted the New Zealand experience.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the Minister give this answer, which I am interested in, because of the constant interjections from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Government and the Deputy Leader of the Government. I ask members to limit their interjections so that the Minister may be heard in silence.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: According to media reports, the cost of petrol in New Zealand has been driven up to $2 a litre as a result of the emissions trading scheme. In relation to the emissions trading scheme, the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, said that New Zealand does not want to lead the world. He said:
We are always conscious of the fact that in the end, climate change will only be resolved when the really big emitters - China, India and the US - are at the table.
BULLI HOSPITAL
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister commit to safeguarding the future of Bulli Hospital?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will refer the question to the Minister for Health. 3260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
100 DAY ACTION PLAN
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council update the House on the progress of the Government's 100 Day Action Plan and other matters relating to it?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: What a very good question and what a great way to finish this first session of Parliament. We came into this place with a commitment to start the change, and we have succeeded. We have passed 27 pieces of legislation since 3 May.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the second time.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: When this place convened for the first time under the administration of the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals team it was the first time in 16 years that it could be said that New South Wales is led by a responsible government. At the end of this parliamentary sitting week, before the anniversary of Barry O'Farrell's first 100 days in government, it is worth reflecting on the changes we have witnessed in the House.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Self-praise is no recommendation.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will get to the Hon. Steve Whan shortly. He is talking about self-praise and looking after oneself. On this side of the House we have seen the fulfilment of longstanding commitments to the people of New South Wales. Legislation that we were elected to pass has been passed and we have seen wrongs righted. However, to be able to determine the effectiveness of this Government's priorities and plans, one must consider the alternative. We have seen no indication that members opposite have learnt the lesson that the people of New South Wales gave them when they voted them out of office. They wanted to teach the Labor Party, once and for all, what they thought of it. It has been said that the Australian Labor Party brand is terminally damaged in New South Wales. What was once the most durable and effective State Government in the country is now a depleted husk of an Opposition. Outgoing Labor Senator Steve Hutchins—
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: Not for the first time today my point of order is about relevance. The Hon. Niall Blair asked a question that was confined to the Government's 100 Day Action Plan. If the Minister has run out of things to say about the new Government's plans, he should sit down and not stray into completely irrelevant material.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Have a drink of water; you have a husky voice. I might disagree about the durability and effectiveness of the former State Labor Government, but we can all agree that the rabble on the other side is nothing more than a depleted husk. There is no need to detail Senator Steve Hutchins' comments. Suffice to say, the recriminatory blame game—
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: Once again, my point of order goes to relevance. The Minister's commentary is about the Opposition when the question from the Hon. Niall Blair was very directly about the O'Farrell Government's 100 Day Action Plan. The Minister's response is completely irrelevant to the question. Mr President, I ask you to tell the—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. The Minister's answer was generally relevant.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Thank you, Mr President—
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.
The House continued to sit.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer? 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3261
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for providing me with the opportunity to say a few more words about this matter. There will be more recriminations and the blame game will continue. There are more rounds to be played and more losers are left to show their hand. Today we have welcomed another refugee from the March election—
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: Not only has the Minister transgressed by not being relevant but he is also reflecting on a member of the House.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his response. At this stage, the Minister has not reflected on another member.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I do not intend to go into great detail about the many and varied contributions that the now honourable member of the Legislative Council made in the other place concerning his new chums in the Legislative Council. In 2006, when talking about Snowy Hydro—
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Are we going to hear that the Premier also promised to gag this House for the first time in 106 years?
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The new member once referred to members of the Legislative Council as indulging in an "orgy of self-congratulation".
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The Minister—
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Minister's time has expired.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Sadly, the time for questions has expired. We will be back to talk more about the honourable member's contributions in the other place. If members have other questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.
PACIFIC HIGHWAY EROSION
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier in question time today the Hon. Robert Brown asked a question about erosion on the Pacific Highway. I advise him that neither the Roads and Traffic Authority nor the joint venture contractor has received any complaints from local fishermen or representatives of the local fishing industry about erosion and sediment control on the Sapphire to Woolgoolga Pacific Highway project. Erosion and sediment controls on the project have been developed and implemented to meet the conditions of approval for the project and the requirements of the Office of Environment and Heritage. Erosion and sediment control measures are frequently inspected and reviewed by the construction contractor, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Office of Environment and Heritage, and Marine Parks Authority and Department of Primary Industries fisheries officers to ensure compliance with established requirements. No concerns have been raised as yet, but I urge representatives of the local fishing industry with particular concerns regarding erosion and sediment control to raise them with the project team for consideration and action as soon as possible.
Questions without notice concluded.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bill reported:
Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. Michael Gallacher tabled the following papers:
(1) Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Reports for year ended 30 June 2010, together with statements of reasons for lateness:
Optical Dispensers Licensing Board Osteopaths Registration Board Pharmacy Board of New South Wales Physiotherapists Registration Board
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher. 3262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 2 August 2011 at 2.30 p.m. unless the President or, if the President is unable to act on account of illness or other cause, the Deputy-President prior to that date by communication addressed to each member of the House fixes an alternative day or hour of the meeting.
PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION FUND
Appointment of Trustee
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher, agreed to:
That under section 14 of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the Hon. Greg Donnelly be appointed as Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE
Message
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
MR PRESIDENT
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That:
(1) A Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the Parliamentary Budget Office, established under the Parliamentary Budget Officer Act 2010.
(2) In conducting its inquiry, the Committee consider:
(a) the purpose of the Office, and whether the terms of the Act are appropriate; and
(b) the role of the Office, including and not limited to its:
(i) functions and powers,
(ii) structure, staffing and resourcing, and
(iii) accountability and oversight mechanisms.
(3) The Committee may consider the establishment and operation of comparable offices in other jurisdictions.
(4) The Committee consist of 11 members comprising:
(a) six members of the Legislative Assembly,
(b) five members of the Legislative Council.
(5) The following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee:
Mr Clayton Barr, Mr David Elliot, Mr Chris Holstein, Ms Kristina Keneally, Mr Geoff Provest and Mr Darren Webber.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders of either House, at any meeting of the Committee, any six members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum, provided that the Committee meets as a joint committee at all times.
(7) The Committee have leave to sit and transact business during the sittings or any adjournment of either House, and despite any prorogation of the Houses of Parliament.
(8) The Committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.
The Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council appoint five members to serve on the Committee, and to fix a time and place for the first meeting.
Legislative Assembly SHELLEY HANCOCK 23 June 2011 Speaker 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3263
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow consideration of the Legislative Assembly's message relating to a Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office forthwith.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE
Establishment and Membership
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That this House agrees to the resolution in the Legislative Assembly's message of Thursday 23 June 2011 relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office.
(2) that the representatives of the Legislative Council on the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget office be Ms Amanda Fazio, Mr Eric Roozendaal, Dr John Kaye, Mrs Sarah Mitchell and Mrs Natasha Maclaren-Jones.
(3) that the time and place for the first meeting be Thursday 23 June 2011 at 4.30 p.m. in room 1136.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.41 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
LEAVING CARE PLANS
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [3.41 p.m.]: CREATE Foundation, an advocacy organisation for children who are in State care or who have been in State care, recently released a report into the outcomes for young people leaving out-of-home-care or foster care in New South Wales. CREATE has found that when children who have been in the care of the Minister turn 18 they are less likely than those in other States to have a leaving care plan and up to one-third may become homeless after leaving care. Care leavers are more likely to be unemployed than others in this age group and are also more likely to spend time in prison. Barnardo's has found that one in seven young women leaving care is either pregnant or already a mother.
Leaving care plans should be available to all of these vulnerable young people so that they can make a start on developing the life skills they will need to look after themselves in the adult world. This should include an introduction to training, further education or employment. All young people who turn 18 who have had a care order and who have been in the care of the Department of Family and Community Services or a non-government care agency such as Barnardo's or UnitingCare Burnside should be offered substantial assistance to prepare for transition to adult life. Ideally, preparation begins at age 15, when living skills such as cooking, budgeting and making job applications are practised with the help of caseworkers and carers. By the age of 17, carers and caseworkers need to be helping young people to prepare a leaving care plan which stays in place until age 25. Young people with a disability need to begin planning a little earlier and can seek assistance from the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, which can follow through with care plans.
Care plans are an entitlement and young people have a legal right to have them. Why is it that so few seem to be in place? I have asked the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister for Finance and Services to provide me with information on what percentage of children in the care of the Minister have leaving care plans. Neither has provided the details on the number of children and young people in care with leaving care plans. Most care leavers are also entitled to a one-off payment called Transition to Independent Living Allowance, but many young people do not seem to be aware of this. I congratulate the Department of Family and Community Services for its document entitled "Information for Young People Leaving Care—Your Next Step". It provides comprehensive information for this group of young people.
Planning for leaving care ideally should begin when children in care are 14 or 15 and, as recommended in the document just mentioned, they need to make sure they are aware of personal hygiene, how to cook a simple meal, use a washing machine, an ATM and manage a simple budget. They also need to know how to get 3264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
help in an emergency, to be able to list some birth control options and to explain the risks of drugs, alcohol and unsafe sex. Of course, this knowledge is important to all teenagers. At around age 17 it is necessary for young people to begin to acquire further skills such as knowing how to budget for ongoing costs as well as unexpected emergencies that might arise, knowing how to arrange accommodation and how to sign a rental agreement. Having a tax file number, a resume and learning how to apply for a job and knowing how to enrol to vote are also important skills.
All this information and suggestions are contained in the Department of Family and Community Services document, "Your next Step—Information for Young People Leaving Care". However, this great information often does not seem to translate into action for this vulnerable group. It would appear that many do not receive the information or assistance to access it and to act on it. I understand that the work required for caseworkers to go through this process is detailed and time consuming, and heavy caseloads mean that the time is not always available to get all this information to the young people who would greatly benefit from it. In developing a leaving care plan, a 17-year-old would probably benefit from the help of an independent party in what is essentially a contract negotiation with a government department.
An example of this would be Barnardo's leaving care services, which aim to bridge the gap for children in care between leaving care and living in the adult world. Barnardo's will help young people to develop the life skills they will need to look after themselves, including those listed in the department's document mentioned as well as encouraging them to undertake employment, training or further education. When they leave care, Barnardo's helps the young people to secure permanent accommodation and remains available to offer support and counselling if necessary. If this essential system is in place but not being delivered effectively to young people then enforcement mechanisms need to be in place. When they leave care, Barnardo's helps the young people to secure permanent accommodation and remains available to offer support and counselling if necessary. If this essential system is in place but actually not being delivered effectively to young people then enforcement mechanisms might need to be put in place.
RURAL HEALTH
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.46 p.m.]: On a recent trip to Broken Hill with The Nationals team I had the pleasure of meeting some dedicated and inspiring health professionals from the region to discuss the health challenges faced by rural and remote communities. To give some perspective, the geographic region encompassed by the Far West Local Health District spans from the Queensland border in the north, to the South Australian border in the west, and to the Victorian border in the south, and covers some 146,000 square kilometres with a population of only 23,000.
The Broken Hill Hospital and Health Service is the major facility for the region and is located just 50 kilometres east of the South Australian border. When you are in Broken Hill you are reminded that people often feel more a part of South Australia than part of New South Wales just because of the geographic location. The Broken Hill Health Service is a major rural referral centre and provides a range of inpatient and outpatient services, including emergency, general medical and surgical, maternity—254 babies were born there last year— gynaecology, paediatrics, rehabilitation, critical care and diagnostic services. It also provides a wide range of primary and community health services. Regional centres provide not only hospital services for the local community but also specialist and sub-specialist services for the broader catchment area, which in this case is vast. These hospitals manage the majority of the complex acute care workload in the area, including high-level cancer and palliative care, mental health, cardiology and renal services, and host highly specialised outreach services from tertiary centres.
One of the key people we met at Broken Hill, where I was accompanied by the Hon. Jenny Gardiner and the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, was Dr Stephen Flecknoe-Brown. He has 30 years of experience in a specialist haematology practice and has a great passion and vision for rural health. He is the current chair of the Greater Western Area Health Advisory Council, a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia and a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Dr Flecknoe-Brown is Director, Cancer and Palliative Care Clinical Network, Greater Western Area Health Service, a visiting physician and Director of Clinical Training at Broken Hill Base Hospital, Chairman of the Medical Staff Council Broken Hill Health Service and a senior lecturer with the Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney.
He is a relative newcomer to Broken Hill—in the past decade—from the North Shore of Sydney. He is a great proponent of those wanting to live and work in a rural or regional area. He is passionate about the services and about training other specialists and doctors to come to Broken Hill. He did a good job in hosting us 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3265
and showing us what is available in the area. At the request of the local member, John Williams, I attended a meeting hosted by the Federal member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, the Broken Hill City Council, Dr Flecknoe-Brown and the chief executive officer of Southern Cross Care, Paul McMahon. We discussed the challenges of managing aged care. It was a great meeting at which a diversity of opinions and some strong opinions were aired. The biggest issue is the aging population. Distance between communities with residential aged care facilities places pressure on acute beds when older patients' capacity to live independently deteriorates following an acute illness.
It was clear that Southern Cross Care do a great job. The Hon. Jenny Gardiner and I had an opportunity to tour its new facility. But there is a problem at times with bed block at Broken Hill Hospital. Evidence at the meeting was that since January this year more than 20 per cent of acute beds in the Broken Hill Hospital have been occupied by older patients awaiting placement in a residential aged care facility. Older patients awaiting placement in residential aged care do not require the level of intervention available in acute hospitals. They need more specialist care and better care in a setting suiting their ailments. Acute settings are not designed or operated to provide those requiring aged care with an appropriate range of services. Demand for acute beds to manage elective surgery is high.
If beds are not available, elective surgery has to be cancelled and acute patients have to be evacuated to Adelaide. This is a very difficult situation, but I applaud the people at the meeting, particularly those working on the ground with the community trying to provide solutions. One of those solutions has been to take people who are filling those acute beds to the multipurpose service centre at Wilcannia. This provides some relief to the hospital bed blockage. While that has caused some consternation in the community—and I can understand that—the Wilcannia multipurpose service centre is a magnificent facility located on the Darling River. I applaud those people, who are trying to do the right thing. I am happy to—and I will—bring the message back to Minister Skinner on behalf of John Williams and me that there needs to be some investment out there in respect of providing a stopgap solution. We also visited the Royal Flying Doctors service. [Time expired.]
TRIBUTE TO TREVOR DAVIES
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [3.51 p.m.]: Today I mark the sad passing of Trevor Davies. Today a community—a community in the truest sense—gathered at Pitt Street Uniting Church to bid farewell to Trevor Edward Davies. At the young age of just 55, Trevor died on 14 June 2011 of a heart attack. His devastated family spoke of a beloved brother and an uncle they cherished; a man quick with a joke and with a long and infectious laugh. They told how as a teenager he had tried to revive his father after he suffered a fatal asthmatic attack. They told of his undying love for his mother. They told of a man who always had something interesting to say, just as he was always able to listen to the stories of others. They told how Trevor wagged school to follow the Federal election campaign and how he started his first newspaper at high school. Trevor was a man whose faith was unshakable and whose care of others was unlimited.
His friends talked of Trevor as the man who knows everyone. He was a man who involved himself in the community of Darlington, Chippendale and Redfern in a way that knitted people together. Trevor was someone who enriched everyone by the simple act of reaching out to others and bringing them together to work for the common good of their own community. His friends talked of someone who truly loved his neighbours as he loved himself.
Trevor Davies was the founder and co-editor of the South Sydney Herald. The South Sydney Herald started its life as the newsletter of the local Labor Party with a distribution of 5,000 one-page photocopies. Trevor, in partnership with the South Sydney Parish of the Uniting Church, grew this little newsletter into a full colour, 16-page independent newspaper produced every month and delivered to 22,000 households. It is made by the community for the community. Every month more than 450 hours of volunteer work go into producing it. Trevor's death has been described as leaving a Trevor-sized hole at the paper. I am, however, confident that the community built around the South Sydney Herald will be able to continue with this unique and vital community publication.
Trevor Davies was an elder of the South Sydney Uniting Church, the founder of REDWatch, a management committee member of a number of local community organisations, including South Sydney Community Transport and the Settlement. He even managed to become the Protestant vice president of the Erskineville St Vincent de Paul Society. For Trevor Davies faith and politics were two sides of the same coin. Trevor had been the secretary of the Darlington branch of the Labor Party for longer than anyone can remember. Trevor worked for Labor at every local, State and Federal election for the past 30 years. He was committed to 3266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
Labor in the finest of traditions. While his commitment was rock solid, it did not mean that his support was unconditional. Trevor encouraged debate. He was prepared to be inclusive of others, even if they were not members or supporters of the Labor Party.
Trevor was fearless in his pursuit of what he considered to be the right thing for his community, be it a compassionate approach to refugees, the need for a local community centre, or indeed fixing a street chair so that people in his community could rest on their way to the shops. One of the great contributions Trevor made was his passionate campaign to gain Government support for the redevelopment of The Block at Redfern. The Pemulwuy Project he fought for alongside the Aboriginal Housing Company is now a reality. Trevor unashamedly backed the underdogs and spoke out about injustice when he saw it. I would like to share one of my favourite quotes from Trevor. He said this when he was a candidate for the City of Sydney in 2008:
The great thing about working class people is that you can't piss on them from up high.
His Labor family will miss him terribly. One of his oldest and dearest friends, Dorothy McRae-McMahon, wrote this poem for Trevor and I would like to share it:
For Trevor The local legend
There he was, in his favourite café, with life unfolding around him, engaging with everyone as they passed and sharing the latest.
And then he was gone, as suddenly as a bright red autumn leaf falling off a tree in the wind.
We looked around, unable to imagine life without him, he who knew everyone and gathered us all together in his knowing.
Plod, plod, plod, he went, pulling his trolley behind him as he delivered his papers to the community and kept checking to see that we all did the same with our bundles.
Then he was mixing with the state and country’s leaders, standing on the ground for what he believed, a faithful representative of his Party and the people.
"Do you vote Labor?" he asked the doctors in the hospital emergency ward. "Jesus loves you anyway" he reassured them as they wondered what to say.
Such a mixture of determination and vulnerability he was. A "one-off", and yet a man of the people. Such love and passion you leave behind you, Trevor Davies.
No-one can replace you, but maybe your kindly spirit will travel on among those who have known you.
Rest in peace, dear friend. Jesus does indeed love you forever, and so do we.
Vale Trevor Davies. 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3267
INDIGENOUS JUVENILES IN CUSTODY
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.56 p.m.]: This week the Federal House of Representatives received the "Doing Time—Time for Doing" report about Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. The report was prepared by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The foreword of the report states:
It has been 20 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Report and yet the incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians, including Indigenous youth, is worse now. Indigenous juveniles are 28 times more likely than non-Indigenous juveniles to be incarcerated... This is a shameful state of affairs.
Later in the report it says:
Many of the issues addressed in the report of this Committee reflect the core underlying factors that the Royal Commission identified as explaining the disproportionate number of Indigenous people in custody, including poor relations with police, alcohol and substance abuse, poor education, unemployment, inadequate housing and entrenched poverty.
The Committee finds it concerning and that these same factors have been identified two decades later, and that the overrepresentation of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system has increased.
In 2007 Indigenous juveniles accounted for 59 per cent of the total juvenile detention population in Australia. The report found that the number of Aboriginal men in custody has spiked by 55 per cent in the past 10 years, while there were 47 per cent more Indigenous women in prison. This reflects a particularly disturbing trend for community and family stability, with more and more young people in the Aboriginal community having a parent currently incarcerated. As a proportion of the Aboriginal population, total imprisonment grew 66 per cent from 2000 levels with 1,891 Aboriginals in every 100,000 Indigenous people now behind bars. These increases in incarceration rates have occurred despite some additional funding and high levels of concern and efforts of community members, government officials, non-government organisations and the judiciary around Australia.
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders arguably represent the most marginalised group in Australia. From an original population of an estimated one million at the time of white settlement, the community now numbers around 470,000 in a nation of 22 million. Many of us have some idea of the overrepresentation of Indigenous young people in the justice system in this State, but the numbers included in this Federal report still cannot fail to shock and appal. What is perhaps most surprising of all is the sense of déjà vu one has when reading the recommendations. If they sound familiar, they probably are. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report, which was released in 1991, contained 339 recommendations, of which 338 were accepted by the then Hawke Government. The "Doing Time—Time for Doing" report contains 40 recommendations ranging from the very simple to the quite complex.
The committee recommends, for example, that the Commonwealth Government provide all Indigenous children starting preschool with comprehensive hearing tests with appropriate follow-up and support when required. This is in recognition of the detriment suffered by young people when hearing loss is not diagnosed. Undiagnosed hearing loss can mean children are unable to communicate properly at school, and in other environments, and their education and their social development suffer. Other recommendations include the need to focus on early intervention and the wellbeing of Indigenous children, rather than punitive responses, and to engage Indigenous elders and leaders in positions of responsibility and respect.
Many of the recommendations are practically identical to those that have been raised in previous reports. One such recommendation is the development of programs that promote better understanding and relations between police and Indigenous communities. That such recommendations still need to be made is most concerning. Many questions need to be asked. Why after 20 years are we still calling for court interpreters? Why are we still calling for cross-cultural training for the police force? Why are we still calling for arrests and jailing to be a matter of last resort? How is it that these recommendations need to be set again? Why are they not second nature to a criminal justice system in the twenty-first century?
The custodial systems in New South Wales and the rest of Australia have undergone numerous overhauls in the past 20 years but the numbers continue to be appalling. The failure to achieve real and lasting change arguably has a number of courses, including that resources for justice reinvestment programs have not eventuated, rehabilitation has not been resourced, punishment has been prioritised and socio-economic factors have not been addressed. In addition, the guidance required from government has been sorely lacking, with motherhood statements often taking the place of real support programs and key funding. The report calls for a 3268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
national approach to addressing the causes of young Indigenous people coming into contact with the criminal justice system, while acknowledging that primary responsibility still lies with the States. Mick Gooda from the Australian Human Rights Commission said:
We must act now before we lose another generation to the criminal justice system.
Closing the Gap is a moral imperative to all of us. This report is yet another wake-up call, urging us to take action to close the gap and lift the economic, health and living standards of this State's Aboriginal citizens. [Time expired.]
SOLAR BONUS SCHEME
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.01 p.m.]: John Robertson's Solar Bonus Scheme has blazed a trail of financial and political destruction without parallel in the history of this State. It is a textbook study in poor design, lack of governance arrangements and absence of an overriding policy framework. Poor leadership was also on show because its inexperienced author, John Robertson, and Labor's revolving ministry has meant no consistency or accountability in its administration. It is now clear that the scheme was a time bomb, doomed from day one. It is a case study in how a small, boutique stimulus plan for industry can when left unwatched and unsupervised rapidly transform into a monster that devours its own parents.
Public policy needs shape and structure. It must have a time frame: a beginning, middle and end. It requires clarity: an explanation as to what is proposed and why. Performance indicators need to be linked to the policy objectives. They need to be developed before the policy is implemented, not made up at the end for the purposes of political spin. Good policy engages stakeholders, builds consensus and understanding. It ensures strong communication as an essential management tool and formulates specific programs that give effect to the policy. Feedback from stakeholders is seen as a goldmine of information that can inform and improve policy but for 16 years under Labor it was treated as a problem to be avoided and deflected at all costs. Public policy has a discernable hierarchy: a broad policy analysing the problem and specifying goals, and programs to give effect to that policy. An important tool for implementing programs is legislation—that is the proper role of legislation.
In the Solar Bonus Scheme there was no policy framework and no program design, all we had was legislation, drafted in haste, which attempted to incorporate the policy and program details in the Act itself. This approach was taken by a Government in its last year in office, after 15 years of procrastination on the renewable energy issue. The former Government did not have a policy. It had a task force report but no proper policy, so it decided to jump over proper planning and design steps to create the Solar Bonus Scheme. We ended up with legislation in lieu of policy, and that is where the seeds of this disaster were planted. Numerous flaws were embedded into the 2009 legislation.
First, the scheme was described by Minister Robertson as an affordable 50 megawatt scheme over seven years, but the take-up rate was not modelled. I raised this problem at the time. That was why the Coalition feared and predicted it could be a boom-bust result—50 megawatts was never able to be enforced. Secondly, the Parliament was assured by Minister Robertson that the take-up rate would be very closely monitored, but that turned out to be bogus. The former Government did not count the applications at all; it only counted actual installed power. The former Government was monitoring the program in arrears and it was counting different things. Some retailers were counting panels and others were counting inverter capacity—two completely different measurements. That reflects the lack of policy documentation.
All the program information was in the legislation. If it was not in the legislation then it did not exist. Those details included the fixed 60¢ tariff, details of reviews, eligibility of participants and so on, and they were all embedded in the bill. Incredibly Minister Robertson did not have any more program management or information outside the legislation. Any questions could only be answered by reading the legislation. I find that negligent in the extreme. Not only was there a failure to watch the take-up or know when changes occurred in the solar market to respond to those changes; there was no ability to respond because the policy was frozen in an Act of Parliament. The rest is history.
A ministerial reshuffle saw the Solar Bonus Scheme time bomb pass to Minister Lynch, who could not have known that the scheme had surged past the 50 megawatt. By the time he received the statutory report in October the number of connections and applications had blown out to 193 megawatts. Suddenly a scheme that was supposed to be a bit over $202 million had gone to over $2 billion. When the former Government did belatedly react, it failed for a second time to properly cap the scheme and left the doors open to fraud for three 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3269
weeks, which allowed another 38,000 applicants at the 60¢ cent rate—79 megawatts of power. I was furious. Members will recall my comments in this place at that time. The Solar Bonus Scheme was thrown by Labor like a grenade with the pin pulled out to the O'Farrell Government. It has cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars. It has destroyed most of the Climate Change Fund. It has destroyed the credibility of the Labor Party and its architect John Robertson, who now leads the Opposition in the other place.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [4.06 p.m.]: This is my third adjournment speech on matters of religion, religious freedoms and protections. I do so from a perspective of civic duty. I seek to protect the rights of all members of all religious communities and, in particular, religious minorities who practice their religion free of vilification, hate and abuse. Like all Australians, they should be afforded the full protection of our laws. We must strengthen these laws to provide the protections needed by people of different religious faiths and those currently under siege in New South Wales. I do not intend to argue issues of morality or ethics, nor the rights and wrongs of cultures and religions. That is not a matter for me. Frankly, one's religious beliefs or faith should be no-one's business other than the faithful.
The Muslim religion of late has yet again been made the target and scapegoat by some right-wing fascist members of our society who are hell-bent on generating tensions to suit their own social and political agenda. Islam has been the subject of intense media scrutiny, as in the recent case of Carnita Matthews, and has been egged on by dog-whistle politics from some State and Federal politicians. That is shameful low-life politics that smacks with abhorrent fascist views and the racist undertones that belie it. We regularly hear that now in this place cloaked, or should I say veiled, by questions on the burqa and the face-covering identity debate that has been in the media of late. The Labor Party knew this would happen as a result of the exchange of preference deal done in the 26 March elections. It seems Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has carte blanche to attack the Muslim community unchecked. We knew this would happen as a natural consequence of the coalition of like minds in some of the Liberal-Nationals leadership and the Fred Nile group.
Unfortunately, everything is now in one way or another directed at the religion of Islam. Everything about that religion and the people of Islam, who make up over two billion around the globe and it is one of the biggest faiths in the Asia-Pacific region in which we live, is being questioned—from dress code, to culture, to schools and mosques, and now to issues of livestock and cruelty to animals. All cruelty to animals must he condemned. Muslims in Indonesia, in Malaysia, in the Middle East, in Australia and around the globe who saw the ABC coverage were as shocked and horrified as we were. How did the question of cruelty bring Islam into question? In Indonesia there are many abattoirs that meet Australian health and other standards, which are verified by Australian authorities. So what connection does cruelty to animals have with the religion of Islam? I have not heard of any Muslim who condones this barbaric act to animals. The answer to this question then lies on the beat-up that certain politicians want to play in their own trashy profiles.
That brings me to an article that was published in the recent Law Society Journal written by Anne Susskind. She reported on the soon-to-be-released book by Dr Sarah Sorial, a lecturer and researcher in law and philosophy at the University of Wollongong, titled, Sedition and the Advocacy of Violence: Free Speech and Counter-Terrorism. I was attracted to the article by its title, "Hidden Faces of Hate Speech". The reality is that there are many hidden faces but, more importantly, there are significant and powerful faces that are not hidden that speak of the hate that we all hear about in this House and see in the media. Free speech is one of the hallmarks of our democratic system, and we must always uphold and protect it. It is the free speech of hate and vilification that causes tremendous harm and must be stopped. And those behind the vitriolic hate attacks must be condemned.
Dr Sarah Sorial noted that although hate speech laws tend to capture speech that is vitriolic and inciting, we should focus instead on the authority of the speaker because that is what determines the harm their words can cause. She said, "... it is one thing for a racist bigot to shout hate speeches on the street corner and another for a respected science tourist or university academic" and, I add to that, a reverend or a cleric or an elected official at local, State and Federal level to generalise and attack the religious beliefs and culture of sections of our Australian society. That legitimises hate and inflicts greater damage on the livelihood of the target of such attack. It makes race and religious profile and abuse a matter of normal practice. It normalises racist behaviour and spreads it as an acceptable standard of behaviour. Some of the attacks may now be veiled around other issues but it may soon blow into a full-scale hate campaign, legitimising public hate campaigns and thus laying the groundwork for the admissibility of further vilification and hate. 3270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23 June 2011
It makes it acceptable to some to spread hatred in the belief that they are doing what is right for their peers, their race and their religion. It legitimises the nasty, trashy, vitriolic hate-based attacks that we witness in this place by people such as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Assistant-President of this House, and the Hon. Cory Bernardi in the Federal Senate. The words spoken by the coalition partner, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, ripping into his pet hate—the Muslim community—may well be a sample of what is yet to come under this Government. [Time expired.]
RETIREMENT OF KERRY CLAY AND KERRY GIRARDIN
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.11 p.m.]: This afternoon we say farewell to two loyal officers of this Parliament. I refer to these two people as "The Two Kerrys" and they, of course, are Kerry Clay, Senior Hansard Reporter, and Kerry Girardin, Hansard Reporter. These two highly valued members of the Hansard reporting team, with 21 years and 15 years of loyal service respectively, have decided to call it a day. They are both in the Hansard gallery right now, reporting the proceedings of the House for the last time. They have done a magnificent job over many years.
The two Kerrys share almost identical service records with the State of New South Wales and the New South Wales Parliament. They both commenced their careers as stenographers with the Attorney General's Department; they both reported the magistrates' courts together in the mid 1970s; and they worked together as court reporters until the 1990s before being appointed as Hansard reporters. Kerry Clay was appointed in 1990 and Kerry Girardin in 1996, so I guess it is totally appropriate that they should retire within days of one another. They will not be retiring for another week because they need to tidy up the final speeches they are now reporting.
The Hon. Mick Veitch: Your speeches are always hard.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I will get to that in a minute. These two highly skilled and highly professional ladies had the most distinguished careers before coming to the Parliament, reporting in all divisions of the magistrates, District, Supreme and appeals courts as well as covering a number of royal commissions and special conferences. Kerry and Kerry will be sorely missed by all elected members of this Parliament and, of course, by their many friends and colleagues in Hansard.
I must relate an amusing story. I am not sure whether it relates to one of the two Kerrys but it was certainly one of the Hansard ladies. Years ago I was on a committee of inquiry at Cessnock from memory. That night the Hansard reporters joined the committee members and staff for dinner. During dinner a visitor who had joined us asked what Hansard did. I cannot recall who the Hansard reporter was but as quick as a flash she replied, "We turn very ordinary speeches into magnificent speeches." Ain't that the truth!
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Speak for yourself.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: They look better on paper than they come out of my mouth.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: How many times do we read our mumblings the next day only to think after reading them, "Gee, how good was that speech!" It is the artwork of Hansard staff members who turn our mumblings into really great speeches.
The Hon. Luke Foley: I have never said that when I have read one of your speeches.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: You should read some of your own sometimes, Luke. On behalf of all members in this Chamber I say thank you to the two Kerrys for turning our very ordinary speeches into such works of art! I am sure all members of this Chamber join me in wishing you both a long, happy and well-deserved retirement. We thank you both very much for the service that you have given to the Parliament over the years.
[Business interrupted.]
COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
Membership
Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That Mrs Pavey be discharged from the Committee on Children and Young People and Mr Blair be appointed as a member of the committee.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution. 23 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3271
STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2011
Message received from the Legislative Assembly returning the bill without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
[Business resumed.]
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.16 p.m. until Tuesday 2 August 2011 at 2.30 p.m.
______