3337
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 2 August 2011
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.
The President read the Prayers.
The PRESIDENT: We acknowledge the Traditional Owners, the Gadigal People of the Eora nation. We also acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands we represent and thank them for their custodianship of country.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills of the previous session reported:
Destination NSW Bill 2011 Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011 Infrastructure NSW Bill 2011 Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2011 Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 Regional Relocation (Home Buyers Grant) Bill 2011 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SECTOR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL 2011
Protest
The President reported the following communication from the Official Secretary and Chief of Staff to Her Excellency the Governor to the Clerk of the Parliaments:
Office of the Governor Sydney 2000
22 June 2011
Ms Lynn Lovelock Clerk of the Parliaments Legislative Council of New South Wales Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear Ms Lovelock
I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 June 2011, in which you forwarded a copy of the Protest made by the Honourable Luke Foley MLC against the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011, as entered in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Legislative Council on that date.
I confirm that I have drawn your letter, and the Protest appended to it, to the attention of Her Excellency the Governor.
Yours sincerely Noel Campbell Official Secretary and Chief of Staff
3338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY
Joint Sitting
The President reported the following communication from Her Excellency the Governor:
Office of the Governor Sydney 2000 22 June 2011
The Honourable Don Harwin MLC President Legislative Council of New South Wales Parliament House SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear President
I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20 June 2011, in which you informed me of the outcome of the Joint Sitting of the members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly held on that date.
I note that Mr Steven James Robert Whan was elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the vacant seat caused by the resignation of Mr Anthony Bernard Kelly.
Yours sincerely Professor Marie Bashir AC CVO Governor of New South Wales
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Hon. Thomas Frederick Bathurst, Administrator of the State of New South Wales: Office of the Governor Sydney 2000 T Bathurst ADMINISTRATOR
The Honourable Thomas Frederick Bathurst, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Administrator of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, as a consequence of the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, having assumed the administration of the Government of the Commonwealth, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State.
31 July 2011
DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE JAMES MILTIADIS SAMIOS, AM, MBE, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
The PRESIDENT: I announce with great regret the death of the Hon. James Miltiadis Samios, AM, MBE, aged 77 years, who was a member of this House from 1984 until 2003. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.
JAPAN EARTHQUAKE
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following communication from Shigekazu Sato, the Ambassador of Japan:
Ambassador of Japan Canberra
4 July 2011
The Hon. Don Harwin, MLC President Legislative Council of NSW Parliament House Sydney NSW 2000
Mr President,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the Legislative Council of NSW for agreeing, on 22 June, to the resolution in its House concerning the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3339
Please also accept my sincere thanks for the House extending its condolences to the people of Japan. I too believe my people's strength, courage and unity shall pull them through this tragedy.
We received many warm messages and generous donations from the Australian people in which the Japanese people will find most encouraging knowing that their friends in Australia are thinking of them.
Yours sincerely Shigekazu Sato Ambassador of Japan
NORWAY KILLINGS
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, on behalf of members of the Legislative Council and the people of New South Wales, a message of condolence has been sent to the Ambassador of the Royal Norwegian Embassy expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of the people who were killed or injured by the recent bomb attack in the central government district of Oslo and the shootings at the Utoya Island youth camp.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.
PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER
Report
The PRESIDENT: According to the terms of the agreement made with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, I table the annual report of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser for the year ended 30 June 2011.
TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED
The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a list of all papers tabled and not ordered to be printed since 1 June 2011.
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I seek leave to table a paper containing 1,328 signatures requesting the decriminalisation of abortion.
The PRESIDENT: Is it a petition?
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: It is a paper.
The PRESIDENT: The member can seek leave table the paper on this occasion. However, if members wish to seek leave they normally consult other members beforehand. Does the member wish to proceed at this stage?
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No.
Leave not granted.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras—Roads and Traffic Authority", dated July 2011, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 27 July 2011. 3340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
MENTAL HEALTH INQUIRY
Production of Documents: Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 21 June 2011, documents relating to an order for papers regarding the mental health inquiry process received on 5 July 2011 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents.
Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege
The Clerk tabled a return identifying those of the documents that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. The Clerk advised that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
KFC RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT
Production of Documents: Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 23 June 2011, documents relating to an order for papers regarding the development of a KFC restaurant received on 7 July 2011 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT
Reference
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I inform the House that, in accordance with paragraph 5 (1) (b) of the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of standing committees, on 7 July 2011 the Standing Committee on State Development resolved to inquire into the following terms of reference from the Minister for Western New South Wales, Mr Kevin Humphries:
That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on the factors restricting economic and social development in central western New South Wales, and in particular:
(a) the provision of health, education and cultural facilities;
(b) the reasons for population decline or growth in different areas;
(c) the adequacy of transport and road infrastructure;
(d) ways to encourage development of local enterprises and the potential of the region overall;
(e) the comparative level of government business activity located within the region;
(f) methodologies for local government to collectively cooperate to achieve increased infrastructure funding and economic growth; and
(g) any other factor restricting economic and social development in central western New South Wales.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Reference
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I inform the House that, in accordance with paragraph 5 (1) (b) of the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of standing committees, on 25 July 2011 the Standing Committee on Social Issues resolved to inquire into the following terms of reference from the Minister for Family and Community Services, Ms Pru Goward:
That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on domestic violence trends and issues in New South Wales, and in particular:
(a) strategies to reduce breaches and improve compliance with apprehended domestic violence orders [ADVOs], including:
(i) the use of GPS bracelets, and
(ii) whether existing penalties for domestic violence are adequate;
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3341
(b) early intervention strategies to prevent domestic violence;
(c) the increase in women being proceeded against by police for domestic violence related assault; and
(d) any other relevant matter.
JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
Chairs and Deputy Chairs
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 23 June 2011 the following members were elected as Chairs and Deputy Chairs of various joint parliamentary committees:
Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission
Chair: The Honourable Catherine Cusack, MLC Deputy Chair: Mr Lee Evans, MP
Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
Chair: Mrs Leslie Williams, MP Deputy Chair: Mrs Roza Sage, MP
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Chair: The Honourable Trevor Khan, MLC Deputy Chair: The Honourable Robert Borsak, MLC
Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety
Chair: Mr Gregory Aplin, MP Deputy Chair: The Honourable Richard Colless, MLC
Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer-General
Chair: Mr Matthew Kean, MP
Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption
Chair: Mr Mark Speakman, MP Deputy Chair: Mr Andrew Gee, MP
Legislation Review Committee
Chair: Mr Stephen Bromhead, MP Deputy Chair: Dr Geoffrey Lee, MP
Committee on the Commission on Children and Young People
Chair: Mr Andrew Cornwell, MP Deputy Chair: Ms Melanie Gibbons, MP
Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office
Chair: Mr David Elliott, MP Deputy Chair: The Honourable Natasha Maclaren-Jones, MLC
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SERVICES EXECUTIVE MANAGER APPOINTMENT
The PRESIDENT: I have pleasure in informing the House that following recent recruitment action Mr Rob Stefanic was appointed to the position of Executive Manager of the Department of Parliamentary Services from Monday 11 July 2011.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SITTING ARRANGEMENTS
Ministerial Statement
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.02 p.m.]: Following a recommendation from the all-party Procedure Committee of this House to the Premier that the sitting days be varied to start on Monday and Tuesday alternatively, the Premier has accepted the request from the House. The sitting days of this House will now be Tuesday to Friday of each sitting week until the end of the session. 3342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [3.03 p.m.]: The Opposition recognises the right of the government of the day to set the sitting program. We acknowledge that a move to a common Tuesday to Friday sitting pattern is an improvement on what we had in the autumn session, which was a somewhat confusing arrangement of sittings. However, we would urge the Government— [Time expired.]
SESSIONAL ORDERS
Time Limits to Debate on Government Bills
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.05 p.m.]: I move:
That, for the remainder of the current session and unless otherwise ordered, the following time limits will apply to debate on government bills:
1. Where there is debate on the question for the second or third reading of a bill the following time limits will apply:
(a) the lead Government and lead Opposition speakers may not speak for more than 40 minutes,
(b) any other member and the mover in reply may not speak for more than 20 minutes, and
(c) a member may move that that time limit be extended by not more than 10 minutes, and such a motion shall forthwith be put without debate.
2. (a) In Committee of the Whole members may speak more than once on the same question, provided that each contribution does not exceed 15 minutes, and
(b) where the speech of a member is interrupted by the provisions of (2) (a), the member speaking may seek the leave of the House to continue speaking for a period of no longer than 15 minutes.
Filibusters have long been a tool used to prolong debate and ultimately talk out a bill. Unfortunately they are not famous for their substance or their ability to influence a debate. Rather, speeches such as these are notorious for the sheer ridiculousness of the content and the mind-numbing repetition. From the variation of literally reading lists of correspondence to utilising the phone book, speakers who lack imagination and wit have employed a range of tactics to draw out the length of a speech. These tactics often result in relatively contentless speeches. Speakers recite words for hours on end but do not really say much of anything at all.
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: They debated this in 1990 and there was no gag.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Members opposite will have a chance to speak. They want to say a lot but they never want to listen. It is time they listened because they might learn something. Delivering dirges for three hours in this Chamber is why members opposite are in trouble. The concept of time limits on debates is not new. Time limits have been used both in Australia and in other parliaments around the world for some time. These parliaments have recognised the need for time limits on debate to allow all members, not just the selfish few, the chance to speak reasonably and to represent their constituents. In Victoria on the second reading the lead speaker in response from the Opposition can speak to a government bill for 30 minutes, and the lead speaker in response from any other party can speak to a government bill for 20 minutes each.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: That is because you did not bother to answer any of the questions raised. You did not address anything during your reply.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Are members opposite finished? The Hon. Lynda Voltz had her chance. She had three hours. She should be quiet while other people are speaking and show some courtesy.
Mr David Shoebridge: How mind numbing.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You are mind-numbing.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: You are lucky there is not a time limit, Duncan. You should get on with this.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will be well within the time allotted. A senator may not speak for more than 20 minutes during debate in the Senate. According to the Senate's standing order, the time limit applies to 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3343
debate generally but special time limits are imposed on particular debates and on speeches under other provisions in the standing orders. Indeed, for bills that have been declared to be urgent, each senator is allowed 10 minutes to speak to the bill within a total time limit of one hour. In the Canadian Senate, which is based on the same parliamentary system as our own, the sponsor of a bill and the first senator speaking immediately thereafter are permitted not more than 45 minutes each for debate. That time limit is not extended if there are questions or comments from other members during the 45-minute period. From these examples we can see a trend towards limiting the amount of time allowed for individual members to debate a bill. This is happening throughout the world, not just in Australia.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: It didn't take you long, Duncan, to throw out 16 years of allowing full debate.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Opposition is the wall of sound. Clearly time limits were lacking in the previous sittings of the New South Wales Legislative Council. I am sure some members who had prepared valuable contributions were unable to speak because of the dominance of a few selfish people who believed their thoughts and representations were of more value than those of others. Although having suffered through their contributions, many members are struggling to share their personal view on the merits of their contributions.
The Hon. Mick Veitch: I made a great speech.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Mick Veitch delivered a better speech than the rest of the Opposition, and he did not take a long time. Let me now examine the parliamentary process upon which the Australian system is based.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: As opposed to the legislation you gave us, Duncan. How much notice did you give?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If the Hon. Lynda Voltz listens she might learn something for a change.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is no-one as stupid as someone who does not want to learn.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: The Minister used grossly unparliamentary language that was directed at a member of the Opposition. I asked him to withdraw it.
The PRESIDENT: Did the Hon. Lynda Voltz find it offensive?
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: I found it offensive.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If the Opposition finds offensive the statement—that there is no-one so stupid as those who do not wish to learn—I would happily withdraw it, but I cannot see why.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Unless I rule a statement to be offensive, the Minister is not required to withdraw it. Is the Minister prepared to withdraw the statement?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, I am. In 2010 the House of Lords in the United Kingdom resolved:
… that speeches in the house should be shorter.
The House of Lords companion to the standing orders states, quite rightly, that:
... long speeches can create boredom and tend to kill debate.
How true. That is a statement from the mother of parliaments. I know those of us in this House who bore witness to the debate in the last sitting session can attest to that fact. The document stipulates that:
… in debates where there are no formal time limits, members opening or winding up from either side are expected to keep within 20 minutes. Other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes.
3344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
This is a most relevant example of expected time limits on government bills.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: No other government has had to do it.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Not in 16 years.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Are members opposite finished?
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Where is your post-it note?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If only we could rely on similar informal agreements to confine those on the other side to acceptable time limits. In time-limited debates, the requirements are more specific. The House of Lords may limit debates to a specific number of hours.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Peter Primrose to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I was saying, the House of Lords may limit debates to a specific number of hours.
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Could the Leader of the Government table the note that is causing such mirth?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I would be happy for it to be tabled.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Within the overall limit that operates in the House of Lords, the time allotted to particular speakers is calculated in advance and stated on the speakers' list. For example, if the debate is set for less than two hours, the mover may speak for 12 minutes, the opposition spokesmen may speak for eight minutes, and the Minister replying may speak for 15 minutes. In a lengthier example of time-limited debates—debates which are set for four hours or more—the mover may speak for 20 minutes, the opposition spokesmen may speak for 12 minutes, and the Minister replying may speak for 25 minutes. It is clear from the examples I have provided that in the Victorian Parliament, the Australian Federal Senate, the Canadian Senate, and the House of Lords in the United Kingdom that time limits are becoming an acceptable standard in debates on bills and that time limits are a widely used tool in all parliamentary debates.
It is time the New South Wales Legislative Council moved towards a modern process for passing legislation. I endorse the sentiments of the House of Lords when I say that extended speeches in this House add little to the substance of debate. Such was the case in the last session of the New South Wales Legislative Council which resulted in the reputation of a House renowned for substance and respectability descending into farce. A few misguided members focused their efforts on listening to their own voices rather than contributing thoughtful and considered debate. Records were broken. Members of the House were witness to the longest and second-longest unbroken speeches in the history of the New South Wales Legislative Council. Newspapers likened these speeches to marathons—an analogy that does a disservice to the great effort and preparation that goes into races such as the London and Boston marathons.
The speeches that have been lauded for their length seem to decidedly lack effort and even thought. Speakers used their six hours in the House to recite words which were relevant in the lightest of all light senses of the term. In the end the only thing those protracted speeches achieved was blocking other members of Parliament and depriving them of the chance to speak. In a democratic society we pride ourselves on providing everyone with a fair chance to express their views. When two or three members took up the majority of time allotted to speeches over a three-day period, other members who were prepared and interested in providing their thoughts on the Government's bill were left waiting.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the second time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Ultimately, the majority of members had no chance to speak in debate on the bill as those speeches left little time for other contributions. The worst part was that those members were proud of their efforts. They loudly declared to the world their respect for diversity of opinion and in practice they barely allowed anyone else to get a word in edgeways, which is what they are doing right now. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3345
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Dr John Kaye to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The cost to taxpayers of this exercise in futility was astounding. Security guards, the Clerk of the Parliaments and Hansard staff all spent their weekend waiting, watching and hoping for the debate to end. When they first commenced those who spoke for three hours or more obviously did not think about the employees of the Parliament or the cost to taxpayers. New South Wales needs debate on legislation that is thoughtful, considered and brief. Importantly, all members should have an opportunity to speak in debate on government bills. To suppress their contributions by speaking for hours on end effectively stymies the debate, is unfair to other members and is wasteful for taxpayers. It is for that reason that I moved the following motion:
That, for the remainder of the current session and unless otherwise ordered, the following time limits will apply to debate on government bills:
1. Where there is debate on the question for the second or third reading of a bill the following time limits will apply:
(a) the lead Government and lead Opposition speakers may not speak for more than 40 minutes,
(b) any other member and the mover in reply may not speak for more than 20 minutes, and
(c) a member may move that that time limit be extended by not more than 10 minutes, and such a motion shall forthwith be put without debate.
Mr David Shoebridge: You have already read that.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am reading it twice because some members do not listen and learn. My motion continues:
2. (a) In Committee of the Whole members may speak more than once on the same question, provided that each contribution does not exceed 15 minutes, and
(b) where the speech of a member is interrupted by the provisions of (2) (a), the member speaking may seek the leave of the House to continue speaking for a period of no longer than 15 minutes.
These vital changes will enable substantive debate on legislation and in the future protect the reputation of this Chamber. Other houses of parliament have made these changes carefully along the way. This House is one of the last houses of review to take on board these changes—a step that needs to be taken. All members have different reasons for believing in the integrity of this House, which is why we must take this important step. Let me give those on the other side some advice for the future. On giving instructions for a speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, "Be sincere; be brief; be seated."
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [3.23 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the motion moved by the Minister for Roads and Ports. If carried, this motion will introduce time limits on speeches on government bills at the second reading and third reading stages. The Opposition believes that this is the latest tactic by the O'Farrell Government to avoid proper scrutiny of the Government's actions. It is the latest instalment in a series of actions that the Government has taken in the Legislative Council to curtail the role of this House as a house of review and to seek to turn it into a rubber stamp for the O'Farrell Government. The New South Wales Legislative Council, Australia's oldest Parliament, has existed continuously since 1823. For the past 120 years the Australian Labor Party, which I have the honour of leading in this Chamber—the oldest political party in New South Wales—has sent representatives to the New South Wales Parliament to represent the people. It does not have a record of abusing the processes or the standing orders of this Parliament.
For more than a century Labor parliamentarians have fought for the policies of my party and they do not have a record of abusing the standing orders of the Parliament. This Chamber, Australia's oldest House of Parliament, has functioned until now without time limits. What is the justification for the introduction of time limits on debates on government bills here and now in August 2011? Early in his contribution the Leader of the House cited as justification for this manoeuvre the example of members reading lists from the telephone book. If the Deputy Leader of the Government was honest enough to acquaint members with the provisions of the standing orders he would have admitted that it is specifically prohibited by Standing Order 91 (5), which relates to the rules of debate. Paragraph (5) of Standing Order 91 prohibits the reading of lists of names of individuals or organisations when an objection is taken. The case put by the Government is fraudulent.
The Manager of Government Business went on to state that democracy was expensive. "Democracy is expensive" is the cry of the dictator throughout the ages. Democracy might be expensive but the cost is worth it 3346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
because of the principle of democracy. The principle of democracy in the House of review has always been based on members of this House having the right to scrutinise the actions of government. The Labor Party knows full well what this place can do when it fully exercises those powers. Over the past century conservative members of this House have used the powers that were available to them to inflict damage on the agenda of elected Labor governments. Labor governments did not respond by altering the standing orders to introduce time limits on debates. It might have occurred to Labor government leaders to seek to do that, but in their wisdom members of this House decided against that and wisely resolved to safeguard the powers available to them as a House of review in New South Wales.
As I said, this is the Government's latest instalment in its assault on accountability in New South Wales. However, I refer members to what happened prior to 26 March, when the then Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, repeatedly campaigned on the issue of government accountability. Indeed, he made it one of the planks of his Five Point Plan. I have a copy of a document entitled "Start the Change—Make NSW Number One Again" released by the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals prior to the March 2001 election, which states:
We have a strong action plan for government. It is based on a Five Point Plan.
Point four states that an O'Farrell Government will restore accountability to government. Accountability is a central plank of the case that Mr O'Farrell took to the New South Wales people at this year's election. It was not peripheral or incidental to his case for change; it was central to his, his party's and his Coalition partner's case to change the government of New South Wales. They made a promise to restore government accountability. It is worthwhile examining the text of that document today before we vote on this motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the House. It states:
It is hypocritical of any government to speak of devolving power and accountability without taking a good hard look at its own standards of accountability.
Policies in this section include a commitment to open government up to scrutiny at all levels... We want to restore confidence in our public institutions and government ... and restore trust and civility into governance in NSW.
They are not the words of the Opposition; they are words in the Liberal-Nationals' document making the case to change the Government. It makes a promise—a clear, black-and-white commitment—to restore government accountability. Page 50 of the document contains commitments to ensure community scrutiny of government because it "both protects the public interest and propels better public sector decision-making and performance". It further states:
In government the NSW Liberals & Nationals will pursue a new era of open government.
That was the commitment made by the Coalition prior to 26 March. However, the Deputy Leader of the House is now seeking to remove one of the pillars on which this Chamber's role as a House of review rests. The Coalition's election manifesto contains a clear, black-and-white statement that "the people of New South Wales deserve open government". What has changed? The only thing that has changed is that the Government has the numbers to make this change because of its alliance with two of the minor parties.
The Hon. Duncan Gay should know that today's government is tomorrow's opposition and vice versa. He also knows that whatever agreements and alliances the government of the day strikes with the minor parties in this place they are never set in stone; that is, they are always liable to change over time. The only reason he has moved this motion is that he has the numbers today. Members opposite should desist from indulging in pious rhetoric and appeals to elevating the standard of debate. This motion is not about elevating the standard of debate; it is about pulling a rort because the Government has the 21 votes it needs in this place to carry this motion. It is being moved for that reason and that reason only: the Hon. Duncan Gay is doing this because he can get away with it today.
Members opposite, who call themselves conservatives, guardians of tradition and custodians of our society's institutions, are introducing for the first time to a Chamber that has continuously existed for almost 200 years time limits on debates on government bills. That is not the action of a political party that has made a commitment to uphold our institutions, the traditions of our parliamentary democracy or conservative values. It is a rort pure and simple because members opposite have the numbers they need today and they can get away with it.
This motion will change the character of this place. The Hon. Duncan Gay's case for making this change was based on what happens in the House of Lords. It has been a long time since the New South Wales 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3347
Legislative Council has functioned as a local version of the House of Lords. The honourable member knows that this Chamber was restructured several decades ago along fully democratic lines. I do not believe that this Chamber should look to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom as the model for how an upper house of a bicameral parliament should function.
In the first three months of the O'Farrell Government—that is, from its election until the conclusion of the first session of the fifty-fifth Parliament at the end of June—we witnessed a number of assaults on the role of this Chamber to exercise its powers as a House of review. First, in early June the Government applied Standing Order 99—the gag—to close down debate on the Government's public sector wages legislation, which it did not have the honesty or courage to take to the people at this year's election and which members had every right to scrutinise and debate at length.
Secondly, in addition to the use of the gag we were also subjected to the most outrageous instructions given to the Committee of the Whole designed to imprison members in this Chamber and to force us to cut short proper debate on amendments to that punitive Government legislation. That was done by an outfit that says it represents the conservative side of politics and tradition. The gag had not been used for 105 years and the Committee of the Whole was instructed to imprison members in this Chamber so that the Government could force its legislation through this place in a couple of hours.
Thirdly, we saw the Government and some of the minor parties combine at the initial meetings of the general purpose standing committees of this Chamber to exclude the Opposition from any role as chairs or deputy chairs of those committees, which was not something that Labor sought to do in Government prior to its defeat in March. We recognise and accept that committees of an upper house have a very legitimate role in scrutinising government, yet this Government again, because it temporarily has an alliance with two of the minor parties, used those numbers to take over the general purpose standing committees to shield executive government from the proper scrutiny that the standing committees of an upper house should always exercise.
I predict that there will be another rort in a couple of months when those numbers will be used on the standing committees to decide that further estimates hearings are not needed; we will just do the minimum. We know the rort will be on because it has been on repeatedly from day one of the Fifty-fifth Parliament. Mr O'Farrell made great play of his commitment to extra scrutiny of government that he would make the Parliament sit for more days. It sounds terrific—more scrutiny of executive government—yet we in this Chamber know what it means. Honourable members from the country are forced to twiddle their thumbs here at night because we pull up stumps at 6.30 p.m. so that the Premier can say that he is making the Parliament sit for more days. We all know the rort involved there. The Parliament is sitting for more days for fewer hours each day. The majority of members of this House who hail from country New South Wales are forced to spend more nights here, but not working, just so that the Premier can pretend that the Parliament is sitting for longer.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: With respect, could I ask that the member, as a matter of courtesy, not stand with his back to the Government while addressing Labor members. It is proper for him to address the President.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders require the Hon. Luke Foley to address the President when he is making his remarks. I believe the member was largely doing that.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: This Chamber will sit for four hours today prior to the adjournment. This Chamber will sit for five hours before the adjournment on a Friday, taking out the lunch break. My point is that once again the Premier's stated case for improving accountability of government is simply not occurring under his Government. In fact the opposite is so. A pattern has emerged in the very early months of the O'Farrell Government suggesting that it is seeking to diminish the accountability of this Government. On page 3 of the "Start The Change" document there is a letter signed by Barry O'Farrell, leader of the New South Wales Liberals. In bold type at the top it says, "I believe", and in the fourth point Mr O'Farrell states:
I believe in trust. If you trust people they will make good decisions for themselves and others. Honesty is about not fearing accountability. Governments that measure their performance openly and are honest with people about the challenges will be able to do better.
He commits to that as one of the values that will shape a New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government. Mr O'Farrell's rhetoric in Opposition was admirable. He consistently advocated for enhanced accountability of government. He led people to believe that under a Liberal-Nationals Government there would be enhanced 3348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
accountability. There is now a body of evidence since the fifty-fifth Parliament commenced in the early days of May that the O'Farrell Government, far from measuring up to its pre-election rhetoric, will take whatever actions it can get away with in government to diminish the government scrutiny and accountability.
The Leader of the House alleged that in the debate on the Government's public sector wages legislation members abused the powers available to them. I believe the record of Labor members of this Parliament over 120 years shows that my party does not have a record of abusing the powers of the Parliament—far from it. I ask honourable members why it would surprise them that Labor members would speak at length on a government bill stripping working people of their right to an independent industrial umpire. The Labor Party was founded in the colony of New South Wales to give workers and their families a voice. We have never apologised for it. That is the reason we exist. When a conservative government, whether in 1891 or 2011, brings in legislation that seeks to strip rights from working people, we will fight it vigorously, we will fight it at length and we will make no apology for doing so. Nobody in this Chamber should be surprised that the Labor Party would use the processes of the Parliament to fight a conservative government tooth and nail on a piece of punitive legislation that strips rights from working people
I ask the minor parties to reflect on this. I recall Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile coming here in his pyjamas a couple of decades ago, amidst much fanfare, checking himself out of hospital, vowing to speak for as long as he physically could to uphold the right of people to vilify homosexuals. That is a matter that the honourable gentleman feels very strongly about. It is, I believe, one of the public policy matters at the heart of his party's agenda.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: Our party is on record as not supporting vilification of homosexuals. We had other concerns about the legislation.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: Party representatives in this place will always go the extra mile fighting for public policy issues of central concern to their party's reason for existence. For example, the Christian Democratic Party will always fight fearlessly for its policy agenda matters, and the Shooters and Fishers Party also centrally concerns itself with public policy matters. Similarly, for 120 years the rights of working people has been the central reason for the existence of the Labor Party.
I say to the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and other party members, and to the members of the Shooters and Fishers Party who are watching this debate elsewhere in this building, that it is not unreasonable for Labor members to vigorously combat a conservative government on issues of workers' rights, just as Labor members accept the rights of others to vigorously advocate on issues of central concern to their parties in this place. It is a gross attack on the rights of the minority in this Chamber to remove the rights of members to speak at length about items of public policy central to their reason for being in politics. My party has sent members to this Parliament for 120 years and we do not have a record of abusing the processes of this Parliament.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: Today's government is tomorrow's opposition and vice versa. Numbers change and election victories come and go. If this motion is carried the character of this Chamber will be permanently changed and it is difficult to imagine that any future government would repeal such change.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It is a sessional order.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: Does that mean this change will apply only this year? Let us get serious: This change will apply as long as the Government has the numbers—and it is open about that. This change is not for three or four months; it is for good. This motion is not being moved to elevate debate; it is being moved because the Government has the numbers. The Government will use those numbers to diminish accountability of government, restrict scrutiny of government and remove the longstanding right of members of this Chamber to debate government legislation at length.
Undoubtedly in the future there will be times when the government of the day of whatever colour will introduce a bill that members of minor parties may take exception to—that occurred in May and June this year for my party when the Government introduced a bill dealing with the industrial rights of this State's public servants. When that time comes minor party members will want to vigorously fight such government legislation 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3349
at length. This motion will give minor party members fewer rights than the Opposition of the day. Under this motion the lead Government and Opposition speakers will be allowed 40 minutes to debate the legislation but other members will be allowed a maximum of 20 minutes. In voting for this motion minor party members will be giving themselves fewer rights than Government and Opposition members. I doubt crossbench members would readily support that.
Circumstances change. The minor parties may enjoy a healthy relationship with the Government today, but that will not always be the case. History suggests that government parties and minor parties fall out with each other over time. Minority party members may consider that by voting for this motion they will be clipping the wings of certain parties in this Chamber with whom they have profound disagreements. However, in the long run it will serve to diminish their rights. I ask members of the minor parties to think carefully. This Chamber is the oldest in Australia. It is part of the oldest Parliament in Australia and has operated without time limits for a very long time. The case has not been made by the Government for this resolution. In the past whenever the issue of time limits has been raised the Legislative Council, in its wisdom, has rejected them and it ought to do so again today.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.56 p.m.]: In debate on this motion I suspect we will hear a lot about history and tradition and forms and precedents. I agree that a lot can be learnt from history. I take members back to 19 November 1863 when some 15,000 people gathered in a field to dedicate a cemetery to soldiers who had fallen in that field some four months earlier. Amongst those who spoke were two men, one of whom spoke for some two hours and the other spoke for less than two minutes. The man who spoke for two hours is all but forgotten in history and his speech, longwinded as it was, has perhaps never been read again. The gentleman who spoke for less than two minutes was President Abraham Lincoln and his was one of the truly great speeches of the modern era—the Gettysburg Address. In less than two minutes, and in some 270 words, President Lincoln summed up not only the reason for the continuation of the war but also why those thousands of men had laid down their lives for their country.
But President Lincoln's speech does not sit alone as an example of a brief, powerful and effective piece of oratory. Winston Churchill's famous blood, toil, tears and sweat speech totalled 627 words and took approximately 4.5 minutes to be delivered in the House of Commons. Napoleon Bonaparte's farewell to the old guard speech totalled 153 words. It followed the retreat from Russia and the collapse of the Grande Armée. In more recent times we had a speech that in some places is considered to be so powerful, important and compelling that it is celebrated by a dinner. The speech is only 347 words long and takes about three and a half minutes to deliver. It is said by some that those three and a half minutes of oratory seem to be the very reason for the existence of a political party to which some members of this place belong. Who was the speaker? What was the speech? Of course, it was Ben Chifley's "Light on the Hill", which is the raison d'être for the party of members opposite.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.
Item of business set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister representing the Premier. Will the Minister rule out doing a deal to support the bill currently on the notice paper to ban face coverings in public places?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is a matter for the Premier. Indeed, it is also a matter for the Attorney General. I will address the question to the Premier or the Attorney General, whoever the member would prefer, and get a suitable response as soon as practicable.
SPEED CAMERA AUDIT
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the results of the Auditor-General's performance audit of speed cameras? 3350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank my Parliamentary Secretary, who has been representing me throughout the State and almost all over the world. On 27 July the New South Wales Auditor-General released the findings of an audit of speed and safety cameras, identifying 38 which were found to have no proven road safety benefits. Only a few months ago the Premier and I made it clear that if any of the State's 172 fixed speed cameras were found not to have improved road safety, they would be removed. As promised, the New South Wales Government immediately agreed to switch off the cameras that were found to be ineffective.
For a long time Labor simply ignored the widespread concerns of the public and motoring groups such as the NRMA that some speed cameras had become cash cows. Unlike the greedy, arrogant and out-of-touch Labor bunch, epitomised by former member for Monaro, the Hon. Steve Whan, who is now a member of this place, we have listened to and acted on this public concern. We also agreed to take on board all the recommendations in the Auditor-General's report. Some of the recommendations include annually reviewing existing sites to check if speed cameras are still appropriate, and publishing trends in crashes, revenue and speeding or infringement data for each speed camera and updating that data annually. Unlike Labor, we are determined to be transparent when it comes to speed cameras. We want to ensure that the cameras are there to improve road safety, not as revenue raisers.
Gone are the days of cameras being used as cash cows, as they were under the previous Government. The poor, old, confused Opposition has been struggling to keep up with what has been going on. Members opposite have flipped and flopped and flopped and flipped from one position to another, displaying gross hypocrisy over speed cameras. We could not find the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. It was like playing "Where's Wally?" No-one saw him at all during the recent parliamentary break. But the Opposition spokesman on roads made a rare appearance. He issued a media release, and on radio the day before the Auditor-General released his report he said:
The Premier has said he will rip out any speed cameras found to be ineffective in the Auditor-General's report and he must keep that promise.
We heard him. We were coming back from Kiama and we had the misfortune to hear him on the radio in our car. Yet after the report came out and he had been got at by some of his Labor colleagues he said:
Any increase in road accidents following the removal of these 38 speed cameras from New South Wales roads will lie squarely with Barry O'Farrell.
Notice the slight difference between what he said—two different days and two different points of view. Who knows what he really thinks? He is probably still thinking about the exotic European motor car he pranged. Labor's spokesman cannot have it both ways. First he demanded that the Government honour its promise, then he criticised it for doing just that. If the member for Lakemba, Mr Furolo, were to act like this on the road, he would be charged with reckless driving. Unlike Mr Furolo, I was pleased that the member for Northern Tablelands, Richard Torbay, came out strongly— [Time expired.]
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is one occasion when the member for Northern Tablelands praised the Government. He strongly welcomed the removal of five ineffective speed cameras along the New England Highway. In his local paper Mr Torbay reportedly said:
Over the years constituents have expressed their concerns about speed camera locations and voiced opinions that revenue, not safety, had become the main focus. There has been a clear community concern about the use of cameras to raise revenue.
Unlike the former Labor Government, which wasted revenue on white elephant projects like the inner-west bus way—that project was $75 million over budget—we have listened to the people. The message from our Government on this important issue is clear. Speed cameras have a place in the suite of road safety measures; they are important. The Auditor-General recommended that the majority of the speed cameras stay, and they will. But the New South Wales Government is determined to ensure that they are retained only if they make roads safer.
IDENTITY CONCEALMENT
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In order to ensure the greatest possible community consensus on any proposed laws 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3351
granting police greater powers to compel women to remove face coverings when their identity is required to be proved to New South Wales police, will the Minister undertake to circulate any proposed draft laws publicly and invite submissions prior to introducing the laws into Parliament?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I assume I am being asked this question in my capacity as the Leader of the Government and not as the Minister of Police and Emergency Services.
Mr David Shoebridge: Including in that capacity, yes.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: In that capacity I will refer the honourable member's question to the appropriate Minister, the Attorney General, and seek an answer from him as soon as practicable.
GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister representing the Premier. Will the Minister rule out doing a deal to support the bill currently on the Notice Paper, item No. 30 outside the Order of Precedence, to repeal the same-sex adoption laws passed last year?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Again I have been asked a question that falls outside my portfolio responsibilities as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I am more than happy to assist the member opposite by getting an answer from the appropriate Minister. Of course, I could have taken the view that the question contained argument in regard to the reference to "doing a deal". However, in fairness to the new member—he has been here for only a short time—I will accept the question on the basis that he probably has a genuine desire to find out information and I will genuinely get him that answer in the fullness of time.
STANDING COUNCIL ON POLICE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the work of the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management meeting that was held last week?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Last week I was pleased to represent the State of New South Wales at the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management. The standing council replaces the former Ministerial Councils for Police and Emergency Management, which have been subject along with all ministerial councils to a review by the Council of Australian Governments.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: They were pleased to see you there, rather than the previous Minister.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They had forgotten him. In April 2009 the Council of Australian Governments commissioned Dr Allan Hawke to undertake a review of its ministerial councils. The review addressed options for the reform of ministerial councils and resulted in the establishment of up to 11 new standing councils to oversee issues of ongoing importance to the nation. The final full ministerial councils system will be in place after the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. Significantly, Dr Hawke commended to the Council of Australian Governments a new Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management as important to the good governance of this nation. The new standing council combines the functions undertaken by the former separate Ministerial Councils for Police and Emergency Management. In this way many issues that overlap portfolios of Police and Emergency Services will be considered in a comprehensive and united manner.
Each of the Commonwealth, States and Territories was asked to provide input to the development of terms of reference for the standing council to ensure a consistent approach. Hosting responsibilities will be rotated and the venue for the 2011 meeting will be in New Zealand. New South Wales sponsored one agenda item last week—highlighting the importance of arrangements for providing policing and emergency responses at the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship's immigration detention centres in New South Wales and nationally. The discussion at the meeting will augment work to develop an appropriate memorandum of understanding between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and police from States and Territories in relation to policing responses when centre security services require assistance.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has given undertakings to work with jurisdictions to examine whether there are any legislative impediments to the exercise of State and Territory police powers at 3352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
immigration detention centres. The outcomes of this work will be reported to the standing council out of session. Other agenda items sought consensus on a number of issues that are vital to effective law enforcement and emergency management that cross borders and in some cases the Tasman Sea. I was delighted to hear praise from our New Zealand counterparts for the work of the New South Wales Police Force following the Christchurch earthquake on 22 February. The first contingent of 122 New South Wales Police Force officers left for New Zealand three days after the earthquake to assist with recovery duties and to maintain law and order.
The New South Wales Police Force has reported to me that there it had no trouble finding suitable officers to go to New Zealand to lend a hand: New South Wales police officers have a great deal of experience in the recovery and rescue phases following disasters. Thanks and praise also were given to the Urban Search and Rescue task force, which comprises 73 New South Wales emergency specialists, 40 of whom were deployed to New Zealand on the same day the earthquake struck and the remaining 33 of whom departed for New Zealand the next morning. Only hours after arriving in Christchurch this team assessed the area, examined buildings to determine collapse patterns and, with respect and dignity, got on with the task at hand. Ultimately a 300-strong police contingent from Australia assisted in the recovery operation. Along with the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, I was struck by the overwhelming level of thanks and gratitude shown for the efforts of our police and all of those from New South Wales who volunteered.
The deployment of police to New Zealand after the Christchurch earthquake was the first time since 1854 that New South Wales police officers were deployed to New Zealand. On behalf of all members of this Chamber I extend thanks to all emergency service personnel, who performed their role admirably.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ON HOMELESSNESS
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. Recognising that this is the National Week of Homelessness, will the Minister provide the House with an update on the New South Wales Government's delivery of the four core outputs that were committed to under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness—in particular, point three, which relates to tenancy support for private and public tenants, and point four, which relates to assistance for people who are leaving child protection, jail and health facilities, to access and maintain stable, affordable housing.
The Hon. Mick Veitch: Good question.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It is a very good question, and I am very grateful for it. The Hon. Jan Barham should understand that under this Government public housing has an elevated priority. The State has an asset worth approximately $30 billion in property that under the previous Government over the past 16 years was allowed to deteriorate, thereby reducing its suitability for occupation by housing tenants to such a level that the Federal Labor Government, Mr Rudd's Government—remember him?
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It had to step in.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, it had to step in with a rescue plan worth millions of dollars in an attempt to remedy the 16 years of public housing neglect by the members opposite. Remember Rudd? The Rudd Government had to rescue this State from 16 years of neglect by Labor. We all need to understand why, so I will take a little time to explain. Labor had a number of hacks as ministers for Housing, such as Joe Tripodi—
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Hon. Jan Barham asked a very specific question. The Minister is not answering the question and instead is attempting to launch an attack on previous Labor Ministers, and that has nothing to do with the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister's answer is in order. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Do members remember that Joe Tripodi's specialty was organising deals for his mates? I will give Opposition members chapter and verse of Joe Tripodi's deals with his mates in relation to Housing properties.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister is launching a character assassination on a former Minister, and that is in no way relevant to the very specific question asked by the Hon. Jan Barham. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3353
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is beginning to stray from the question he was asked. He will confine his remarks to the question.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I seek clarification. With regard to relevance previous Presidents have ruled that answers to questions should be generally relevant. I assumed that I was being generally relevant when I was speaking about the Housing portfolio.
The PRESIDENT: I assume the Minister is apologising to the Chair.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, I am.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister may continue.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Under this Coalition Government public housing has elevated priority. We now have two Ministers who are responsible for Housing. I am responsible for the asset management side—
The Hon. Jan Barham: Point of order: My question was specific and I realise that it was addressed to the Minister in the other place, and I am more than happy to wait for an answer.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am only partly through my answer. [Time expired.]
LEGAL DRINKING AGE
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as the Minister representing the Premier. Will he rule out supporting the bill that is currently on the Notice Paper to increase the legal drinking age to 21 years?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am more than happy to assist the Opposition to obtain answers. However, it is obvious that we need a question time committee. After the first day of Parliament following a six-week break, it is obvious also from the series of questions that have been directed by members opposite to Ministers in another place just how dim members of the Opposition have become. They do not want to talk about policing, they are concerned only to ask questions of Ministers in the other place. I suggest that members opposite consider using the procedure for placing questions on notice. In the interim I am more than happy to assist them to obtain answers from Ministers in the other place.
COMMISSION OF AUDIT
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister outline to the House how the Government's Commission of Audit will deliver better value to New South Wales?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for his excellent question and for his commitment, like that of all Government members, to the Government's delivery of its 100-day Action Plan and, subsequently, to the delivery of its program over the next almost four years. After that, we will see. I report to the House that on 9 July 2011 the Government announced details of the second stage of its Commission of Audit, which will review the current level of productivity and quality of service across the public sector to ensure that the best value of service is delivered to the people of New South Wales.
[Interruption]
Isn't it lovely to be back? The members opposite are all so narky; they must have had a very nasty break. The Expenditure and Management Audit will be charged with examining public sector management and service delivery issues, highlighting specific systemic weaknesses in management and expenditure, and identifying opportunities for micro-economic reform. The people of New South Wales have had to endure 16 years of poor financial management from successive Labor governments. They have had to endure 16 years of irresponsible spending. Despite all this spending, Labor still could not deliver quality services or value for money to the people of New South Wales. It could not deliver on roads, rail, schools and hospitals. Where did all the money go? Did Labor even care where the money went? 3354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals care what happens with taxpayers' money. The O'Farrell Government wants to see value for money for the taxpayers' dollar. That is precisely why we are undertaking this audit, which, coupled with the financial audit that is already underway by the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Michael Lambert, will finally provide a clear line of sight for the Government on the performance of New South Wales State government services and the ongoing impact of them on the finances of the State. It will give us a clear picture of what is costing the State the most money and how money can be more effectively used. The audit will use case studies and global benchmarking data to identify measures to drive better efficiencies and performance across the public sector.
As already announced by the Treasurer, Dr Kerry Schott has been appointed to the role of Commissioner of the Expenditure and Management Audit, and Mr David Gonski has been appointed to the role of chair of the audit. Both are excellent appointments and the Government is pleased that such eminent individuals have accepted the roles. As members will note, both appointments are eminently well qualified for the task ahead of them. Dr Schott was the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Sydney Water. Dr Schott is a member of the Infrastructure Australia Board. She was previously Deputy Secretary, New South Wales Treasury, Office of Infrastructure Management, and was a non-executive director of the Sydney Water Board from 1997 to 2001.
Dr Schott spent 15 years as an investment banker, including as Managing Director of Deutsche Bank and Executive Vice President of Bankers Trust Australia. She has worked as an economic policy adviser with the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Government and as an academic at University College London and at Oxford University. Dr Schott was Chairman of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority and the New South Wales Film and Television Office, a Director of the Film Finance Corporation Limited and Director of Australian Airlines Limited.
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF RURAL LAND
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of the recent reports indicating that foreign private and sovereign wealth funds with specific food security briefs are buying rural land in New South Wales and have reportedly spent $330 million buying half a million hectares in the past year, including $20 million worth of Murray Darling Basin water licences? Given that food security for the people of New South Wales should be high on the agenda of the State Government, will the Minister provide the House with a comprehensive and perhaps colour-coded map of the State showing land holdings above 250 hectares that are owned by overseas interests?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Despite my fabulous linguistic skills, in answering the question I am not able to provide a map through words. However, I am sure my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, can answer this serious question, and I will pass it to her for a response.
ABORTION
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier. Will the Minister rule out supporting the bill currently on the Notice Paper that will force women wanting an abortion to view their ultrasounds?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am more than happy to provide an in globo answer to the strategy that has been adopted today by the Opposition. There are approximately 30 bills that it seems intent on working its way through. Obviously the Opposition has run out of issues. Thank goodness members of the Government have asked questions today, and I pledge that Government members will have more questions to ask tomorrow. We might even give a couple to the Opposition to help it along. It is obvious that the Opposition has lost its way during the five-week break. We will have to make sure the parliamentary breaks are not so long in the future. We will have to retrain them.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: We should leave some questions on the photocopier.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will do that. I thank the member for her question. Unlike other Opposition members, the Hon. Penny Sharpe showed some discipline by not using the word "deal"; she knew that if she had, it would have been struck out. I will provide the Hon. Penny Sharpe with an answer from the relevant Minister in the fullness of time. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3355
BAULKHAM HILLS AND KINCUMBER FIRE STATIONS
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, on behalf of the Opposition. Will the Minister inform the House about the progress of new fire stations in Baulkham Hills and Kincumber?
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: The question is out of order as it contained an ironical expression.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: To the point of order: The member asked me a question that did not contain any irony. The ironical comment was made before the actual question was asked and, therefore, it is not out of order.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The expression "on behalf of the Opposition" is ironical. The Hon. Charlie Lynn will not include those words in any question he might ask in the future. Following past precedent, I will allow the Minister to answer those parts of the question that were in order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We are offering to retrain all Opposition members starting at question time tomorrow. I had great pleasure representing the Government at the opening of two new fire stations during July 2011. The new $1.96 million Kincumber Fire Station on the Central Coast, which was officially opening on 12 July 2011, is strategically located to provide improved response for protection for residences and businesses in this rapidly growing area. I thank members of the Government for their continuing support for this portfolio. The fire station will not only protect Kincumber; it will also provide rapid response together with other local Rural Fire Service and Fire and Rescue crews at Macmasters Beach, Pickets Valley, Avoca and Bensville. An integral part of the development was the preservation of local flora and fauna.
[Interruption]
Members opposite are not interested. They do not know how much the local people struggled to get this fire station, but I will put it on the record—
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Whan-star.
The Hon. Steve Whan: If you want to name me that, that is fine.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is what you named yourself.
The Hon. Steve Whan: I named my staff that, but never mind. I was the Minister who delivered this station so I know all about it. I have taken a great interest in it—
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The orgy of self-congratulation has started. Caligula opposite has spoken. The fact is the people of Kincumber were concerned about the preservation of local flora and fauna, and that has been incorporated into the design and layout of the site. As a result, native bushland has been retained and incorporated into the site's new landscaping. It is a shame that members of the Opposition did not take the time to attend the opening of that station.
I also officially opened the new Baulkham Hills fire station on 21 July 2011. The new $2.4 million station is located in a more central position in Baulkham Hills, which is one of Sydney's major growth areas. The new location will improve response times and efficiency and increase community protection in the area, including the new and existing residential developments in the Baulkham Hills and Bella Vista areas and in the adjoining North West Growth Sector. I acknowledge the support of members opposite. The state-of-the-art facilities at both fire stations include double fire engine bays, large kitchen and eating areas, training rooms that can be used for onsite fire-fighter training or community events, gyms, water tanks that will harvest water for use in toilets, and solar panels for hot water supply and general power use, all of which will help to reduce Fire and Rescue NSW's carbon footprint. 3356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
Protection of the community from fire and other dangers remains a high priority for this Government, despite the interjections and moaning of members opposite. The completion of these new fire stations will increase the protection of communities in and around both Kincumber and Baulkham Hills, not only through improved emergency response but also through proactive fire prevention activities that will help families to keep themselves safer. I congratulate the member for Terrigal, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, who represents Kincumber, and Mr David Elliott, the newly elected member for Baulkham Hills, who was present for the opening of his new fire station.
NATIONAL PARK VISITOR NUMBERS
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Minister aware of a recent letter to the National Parks Journal in which the writer laments, "If you have been to any national parks lately around Sydney you will have noticed how few people are visiting"? Given that the previous Government ridiculously claimed that there were 38 million visitors to national parks in New South Wales each year, will the Minister provide the House with detailed visitor figures for each national park over the past five years?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Robert Brown for his interesting question. I will obtain a response as soon as possible from the Minister for the Environment. I will be interested to read it myself. With regard to the utilisation of our wonderful parks, one of the first things the O'Farrell Government did was abolish entry fees for the Mount Annan and Mount Tomah parks in western Sydney. I understand that as a result the visitation rate has increased about four-fold. There is obviously a great demand for these assets if they are open to the public, appropriately nurtured and properly used.
X-RATED FILMS
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. Will the Government rule out supporting the bill of which notice has been given that is designed to ban the possession of X-rated films?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will refer the question to the Premier and obtain an answer for the Hon. Amanda Fazio.
PORT BOTANY EXPANSION
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on exciting new developments regarding the third operator at Port Botany?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to inform the House that I handed over the site of the third terminal to Hutchison Port Holdings at a ceremony at Port Botany yesterday. This project is a massive investment in the future of the New South Wales economy and is one of the most extensive and innovative port infrastructure projects to be undertaken in Australia in the past 30 years. The third container terminal is expected to create 9,000 new jobs and it will boost the State's economy by $16 billion over the next 20 years. This expansion will have real benefits for the people of Sydney, with 85 per cent of trade through the port going to a home, office or factory within 40 kilometres of Port Botany.
In December 2009 Hutchison Port Holdings was identified as the successful tenderer for the operation of the third container terminal at Port Botany. Now that the handover is complete, Hutchison will fit out the new terminal with its own infrastructure, including cranes and handling equipment. The Port Botany container terminal expansion project has established five new shipping berths along a new 1.85-kilometre wharf. It has also created dedicated road and rail access to the port and rehabilitated the estuarine environment in Botany Bay. Port Botany is this State's premier container port and the $1 billion expansion will double the handling capacity of the port to meet projected long-term trade growth for Sydney and New South Wales.
Hutchison is one of the world's largest port operators and controls 300 berths in 49 ports around the world, with interests in 25 countries throughout Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, the Americas and Australia. Its breadth of experience and depth of resources make a fine match for the Port Botany expansion project. It is anticipated that Hutchison will spend between $500 million and $1 billion on infrastructure and lease payments in New South Wales over the next 30 years. This expansion is a major step forward in the Government's determination to provide a commercially focused, efficient logistics chain. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3357
The Government is investing in providing the infrastructure and services that importers and exporters need to meet long-term trade growth through the State's leading container port. Getting imports from the port to the consumer is another challenge. This is why the Government has created as part of its recently announced integrated transport agency, Transport for New South Wales, a new division focusing on freight and regional development. The Freight and Regional Development Division will be a key feature of the new organisation, integrating freight strategies and programs to meet the current and future needs of the New South Wales economy and, in particular, regional economies. For the first time there will be a Minister overseeing the coordination of freight from paddock to port and from ship to shop.
COAL SEAM GAS INFRASTRUCTURE
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Energy and Resources. During a recent fact-finding trip to farming communities and coal-seam gas operations near Narrabri I saw a lot of rusting, badly secured infrastructure and a pipe leaking methane gas into the atmosphere. What is the Government doing to investigate leaks in coal-seam gas infrastructure in New South Wales? What monitoring of gas infrastructure does the Government conduct? Does the Government have any concerns about fire danger as a result of locating coal-seam gas infrastructure in the middle of the highly flammable Pilliga forest?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has finally noticed the crumbling infrastructure across New South Wales, which is a legacy of the former Government's 16 years in office.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: The question relates to Santos' Eastern Star Gas infrastructure, not the state-owned crumbling infrastructure.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will take that as a statement rather than a point of order. Eastern Star Gas has informed me that there has never been a need to operate the drain in the footage broadcast on the 7.30 Report. Eastern Star Gas remains concerned that the drain has been tampered with—we do not know by whom, by the way. Eastern Star Gas quite rightly points out that the drain should be operated only by highly trained professionals following strict occupational health and safety rules. Eastern Star Gas has informed me that closer inspection of the drain indicates that it has been opened and closed with a tool, by someone who was not authorised by, or associated with, Eastern Star Gas. The footage provided to the ABC was filmed while the drain was open. Eastern Star Gas says that the drain was opened and closed. Was it the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham who provided the film to the ABC? We accept his statement that he had nothing to do with that, as anyone would.
ABORTION
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. Will the Minister rule out supporting the bill currently on the Notice Paper to ban abortion in New South Wales?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It saddens me that the Leader of the Opposition would allow a member who is obviously in discomfort to walk all the way to a microphone to ask such a silly question based on a strategy that the Government has exposed as being nothing more than an attempt—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: The Minister is clearly debating the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is debating the question. He will confine himself to giving an answer that is relevant to the question asked.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Opposition's strategy is intriguing, to say the least. That the Opposition would come to this first day of question time and ask a series of questions on behalf of—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You are still debating the question.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am more than happy to answer it, as I am answering it, but I will give Opposition members some advice. They will get the same response from me. I suggest that they think about their strategy because, quite simply, they are obviously incapable of identifying other issues that are of importance to the people of New South Wales that could be asked directly of me. 3358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will seek advice in relation to the question, as I have done with all other such questions. I will ensure that it is responded to and that the member is advised once the answer is available.
SYDNEY WATER
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister advise the House of recent appointments to Sydney Water?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. David Clarke for his question and for his interest, as always, in the real issues in New South Wales. I am delighted to advise the House that this week Kevin Young has commenced his term as the new Managing Director of Sydney Water. I have worked closely with Mr Young since taking on the portfolio, as he was previously the Managing Director of Hunter Water. Kevin has a rich history in the water industry. In addition to his career at Hunter Water, Mr Young is currently the chair of the Water Services Association of Australia. He has a degree with honours in engineering and a master of business administration. He is a fellow of the Institute of Engineers Australia and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
Kevin does, of course, have big shoes to fill—he is replacing Dr Kerry Schott. I mentioned Dr Schott in an earlier answer in relation to audit. I take this opportunity to note that her contribution to the State in her time as Managing Director of Sydney Water was particularly important. I thank her—and I hear a number of members joining with me in that regard. Dr Schott is prepared to continue ongoing important work for the State in the Commission of Audit, which is outstanding. While I could spend all of my available time highlighting Dr Schott's achievements, I know that she is really proud of her work with the Sydney Water workforce, including the relocation from the old Bathurst Street head office to new premises at Parramatta. She is and was a champion for the customer, which is something that Kevin Young has already highlighted as one of his priorities at Sydney Water.
It was quite fitting that last Friday, Kerry's last day as managing director, Sydney Water took out three awards in the categories it was nominated in for the New South Wales Australian Teleservices Association awards in Sydney. The Australian Teleservices awards recognise companies that go over and above when it comes to customer services. Sydney Water won the award for contact centre of the year for call centres that have between 50 and 120 full-time employees. Staff member Kathy Hourigan was named contact centre manager of the year and Sue Ferguson was named team leader of the year. Kevin has vowed to keep the customer foremost in his mind. I know that the staff at Sydney Water have been empowered to share that mindset.
There are many challenges facing the water industry throughout Australia, especially in New South Wales. I know that all members will join with me in wishing Kevin Young all the best in his new role and in gratefully thanking Kerry Schott for her previous service in Sydney Water and her ongoing service through the Commission of Audit. While on the subject of the Commission of Audit, I acknowledge the role of David Gonski, who is the Chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, Chairman of Investec Bank (Australia) Limited, Chairman of Coca-Cola Amatil Limited and Chairman of Ingeus Limited. He is also a director of the Westfield Group and Singapore Airlines, and he served as Chancellor of the University of New South Wales from 2005. Indeed, he was a partner of mine at Freehills many years ago. We look forward to seeing better value for taxpayers' dollars continuing to be delivered through Sydney Water and all of the services that we provide.
DHARAWAL STATE CONSERVATION AREA
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. Prior to the State election the Coalition committed to making Dharawal State Conservation Area a national park and to commencing this process within 100 days. Is the Minister aware that this area is currently under threat from mining as a result of a petroleum exploration licence that covers the area and the Bulli seam operation development application and BHP's lease? Will the Government commit to declaring Dharawal a national park without depth restrictions?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Government has complied with its 100 Day Action Plan obligations in relation to that matter. I am sure that there will be further announcements in due course. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3359
GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. Will he rule out supporting the bill currently on the Notice Paper to implement a family impact commission to impose a conservative agenda on legislation?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: During the course of question time I have been asked a series of questions concerning private members' bills. On behalf of the Premier, I can advise members that, consistent with comments made in the other place, the Government will consider all private members' bills read before the House. Cabinet and caucus—the combined National and Liberal parties—will consider them on their merits when they work their way through the system, as we always do and have always done. I note that Opposition members have asked questions about notices of motions from members of the crossbench. They have not asked any questions in relation to matters relating to themselves because, quite simply, they have none.
Those opposite have no proposals and no ideas. On behalf of the Government I am being asked to pre-empt a proper process. Had members opposite been here long enough they would know that all sides of politics follow a process by dealing with matters as they work their way through the system. One does not speculate. One does not comment on something that may or may not ever see the light of day. One undertakes a proper process. Historically that is what government, opposition and crossbench members have always done. We deal with matters as they arise on their merits. Interestingly, I hear the Hon. Amanda Fazio screaming, "Deal, deal". I assume she is not talking about the Channel 7 evening television program called Deal or No Deal. Grubby little interjections are being made by the member opposite suggesting that some type of deal is taking place.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I hope they are annoying you.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No. I am annoyed because of the fraud that the member opposite and that mob over there—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister has strayed from the leave of the question. If he wishes to refer to members of this House in such a way he should do so by way of substantive motion.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The subterranean sleazy inference is that there is some deal going on. I can remember how offended members opposite were when the late Roy Smith introduced the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008. Ms Sylvia Hale, a former member of The Greens, accused the former Government of a deal. She accused the former Government of supporting the Firearms Amendment Bill in exchange for support for planning laws. Those Labor members condemned that accusation and now they are fighting with The Greens for irrelevancy. The same thing occurred with the firearms legislation in 2010—again introduced by the late Roy Smith—when Lee Rhiannon accused the former Government of a deal. The former Government acted appropriately at the time by condemning it publicly, but now its members want to suggest that deals are at play. [Time expired.]
SOUTHERN YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: I address my question to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister update the House on his recent visit to Southern Youth and Family Services?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: On 6 July I was privileged to meet with Narelle Clay, AM, the Chief Executive Officer of the Southern Youth and Family Services, Helen Backhouse and Frank Prothero, the manager of residential. I saw for myself the excellent work being done in the Illawarra by Southern Youth and Family Services. Southern Youth and Family Services provides a range of social services, such as youth accommodation and housing, youth outreach support, youth out-of-home care, youth health services, youth employment, education and training, and family support.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Gee, it does a lot. I hope it gets paid for it?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It does. Because of its good work, Southern Youth and Family Services was acknowledged in the 2009 Integral Energy Illawarra Business Awards as winners in the community sector 3360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
category. The main purpose of Southern Youth and Family Services is the support and care of vulnerable, disadvantaged and homeless young people aged 12 to 24 years or young people at risk of disadvantage and homelessness. These young people may also have children. Southern Youth and Family Services supports the families of these young people, which include parents, foster parents, grandparents and siblings. Examples of services for families include early intervention and prevention work, home visiting, family and adolescent counselling, services to assist family reconnection with young people, specific services for young families and teenage parents, and parent participation strategies in the alternative learning and education programs conducted by Southern Youth and Family Services.
Southern Youth and Family Services operates across the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and the Southern Tablelands and conducts one nationally operated program. Southern Youth and Family Services has a total of 38 individual services under its management. These programs are funded by a range of State and Federal government programs and other sources of revenue. Some of these services include crisis youth refuges in Goulburn and Wollongong; supported accommodation services, medium-term and transitional support; social housing programs; out-of-home care for young people under State care, including residential models, semi-independent support and outreach support; family counselling services; getting-it-together brokerage services, including support for vulnerable young people and drug and alcohol support; the "foyer service"; dual diagnosis project; youth health centre; support services to young mothers, babies and children; a post-release support program for young people leaving the juvenile justice system; an education program for early school leavers; education, training and pre-employment services and case management; early intervention adolescent and family support services; and support services for newly arrived young people.
Southern Youth and Family Services offers expertise in youth and homelessness service delivery. Narelle Clay is also the National Chairperson of Homelessness Australia, a member of the NSW Homelessness Community Alliance and a member of the Prime Minister's Council on Homelessness. Managers within Southern Youth and Family Services are members of various statewide peak bodies. Southern Youth and Family Services is represented on a multitude of local and regional networks and interagencies. I have found Narelle Clay to be a tremendous assistant. Unlike members opposite, Narelle has a commitment to deliver services to the people of New South Wales, and I take her counsel in that regard. I am pleased to know her and to have been able to visit her at her workplace. [Time expired.]
ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. Given that electroconvulsive therapy in combination with general anaesthesia is clinically accepted for treatment of various psychiatric conditions and given the prohibition of deep sleep therapy, what provisions exist to ensure the safe duration of anaesthesia during electroconvulsive therapy? How many children, pregnant women and elderly patients have received electroconvulsive therapy for periods longer than clinically accepted?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I undertake to get an answer to the honourable member's question from the Minister for Health as quickly as possible.
SEX OFFENDER REGISTER
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I direct my question to the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. Will the Minister rule out supporting the bill currently on the Notice Paper to publicly list the names of people convicted of sex offences?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I refer the member to my earlier answer. I am looking for the motion on hair extensions. Are we going to rule that one out? I cannot see it on the Notice Paper, but I am sure we will see it in the next couple of hours.
NEWELL HIGHWAY SPEED LIMITS
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I address my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the recent announcement to increase speed limits on the Newell Highway?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Last month the New South Wales Government fulfilled another key election promise by announcing that the majority of the Newell Highway would be returned to a 110 kilometres 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3361
per hour speed limit. In December 2009 the former Labor Government reduced the speed limit on the highway to 100 kilometres per hour. Some 94 per cent of the Newell Highway has had the speed limit restored to 110 kilometres per hour, which equates to approximately 850 kilometres of the highway.
[Interruption]
The Greens may jump up and down, but I am yet to see a Prius that can get over 100 kilometres per hour. As a decisive and competent Government, we not only announced the policy change but successfully implemented the change on the ground within 100 days of winning office. For the communities and businesses of Dubbo, Parkes and Forbes the Newell Highway was a key election issue that saw people vote overwhelmingly for a new member, with The Nationals' Troy Grant gaining a swing of 14.5 per cent against the incumbent Labor-backed Independent. The issue also resonated strongly in Kevin Humphries' Barwon electorate and Adrian Piccoli's seat of Murrumbidgee in southern New South Wales.
Dr John Kaye: Does it pass through those electorates?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, it does. Significantly, communities along the Newell Highway are not alone in wanting the 110 kilometres an hour speed limit reinstated on the highway. The NRMA had long campaigned on the issue. On hearing the Government's announcement, the Director for Motoring and Services, Graham Blight, said:
By reinstating the 110km/h speed limit along most of the highway we believe it will help ease traffic flow and eliminate dangerous driving practices on the Newell.
Passenger vehicles will now be able to overtake heavy vehicles safely and legally again as they will now be able to do an extra 10km/h where the new speed limit applies.
The National Road Transport Operators Association also congratulated the Government on the change, and said this about road safety:
In the transport industry's opinion, this increases road safety both for car and truck drivers. The speed separation between trucks and cars was essential to avoid cars and trucks bunching up behind each other. This allows the cars to get away from the trucks and maintain the legal speed limit.
Under Labor, the concerns of local communities and businesses on this issue were dismissed. Indeed, back in September 2009, on the eve of Labor reducing the speed limit, New South Wales Assistant Police Commissioner John Hartley gave the following advice, which was ultimately ignored. He said:
There are some long stretches where 110 km/h is quite sufficient and to reduce it may make criminals out of people who are doing the right thing.
Reducing travel times along the Newell Highway will also help to improve the economic productivity of New South Wales. However, we recognise the need to balance this with the safety of motorists. That is why we have maintained 100 kilometres an hour speed limit zones along some sections of the highway, including between Finley and Jerilderie and from Boggabilla to the Queensland border. Currently the Government is implementing a $30 million package of road safety works on the highway, including major upgrades where the Newell Highway intersects with the Sturt, Castlereagh and Oxley highways. This is in addition to annual funding of approximately $45 million for black spot treatments, safety works, traffic management, asset management and capital works.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have further questions I suggest that they place them on notice.
SHENHUA WATERMARK COALMINE
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 9 May 2011 the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked me in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy a question without notice regarding the nature of the agreement between the Government and Shenhua with regard to how its Watermark coalmine project will comply with the new strategic regional land use policy. In particular, is it a written agreement signed by the appropriate Minister and the company or simply a verbal agreement? The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has provided the following response:
The Government has introduced a range of new initiatives designed to address concerns around land use conflicts in our regional areas, particularly between the coal mining and coal seam gas industries and agricultural industries.
3362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The new initiatives will be staged over time and include a number of immediate transitional arrangements in response to issues occurring now, as well as longer term measures designed to give better certainty to our communities and industries about how regions will change over time.
Key elements of the policy include the introduction of an Aquifer Interference Regulation to protect our important water resources and requiring all new mining and coal seam gas projects to submit an Agricultural Impact Statement focusing on impacts on important agricultural lands.
The development of new Strategic Regional Land Use Plans across the State is also a key element of the Government's new policy. These plans will be rolled out across the State, commencing with the Upper Hunter Region and the New England/North West Region.
All new mining projects, including the Watermark proposal, will be required to comply with the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy. In particular the requirements for an Aquifer Interference Approval and an Agricultural Impact Statement will be very relevant to the Watermark proposal.
As the Minister for Roads and Ports has already noted, Shenhua agree that any proposal they bring forward would need to comply with the Government's tough new rules.
DEFERRED ANSWERS
The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS
On 24 May 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services a question without notice regarding occupational therapists. The Minister for Finance and Services provided the following response:
I am advised that Home Modification and Maintenance Services in NSW are funded by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care under the Home and Community Care Program, a joint initiative of Commonwealth and State Governments.
I am advised that each month Housing NSW receives approximately 50 requests to undertake modifications to public housing properties to meet the needs of tenants or household members with a disability. These modifications vary greatly from a simple request for hand rails to complete re-modification of a property.
The time taken to complete these modifications depends upon a number of factors including the extent of the work required, the existing property constraints, whether or not a development application is required and the time taken to source and obtain specialist disability equipment.
RIVER RED GUM LOGGING
On 24 May 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding river red gum logging. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised:
Under the terms of the Red Gum package provided by the previous Government, workers and mills that were directly affected by the declaration of national and regional parks are eligible to receive up to $51.5 million available from the Red Gum Structural Adjustment. This assistance included up to $5 million to support dependent businesses affected by the declaration of national parks and reserves, support businesses that wish to remain in the timber industry and provide general support to the wider industry provided it is employment related. As of 3 June 2011, $40.73 million has been expended on this part of the program.
In addition, local communities affected by the changes to the river red gum industry will be assisted with funding of up to $12 million to support and assist new and alternative business and development opportunities that will be of broad benefit to the community as part of the Regional Employment and Community Development Fund. Under the first funding round of this program, projects to the total of $2,103,844 have been approved in the Deniliquin Shire, including two projects proposed by Deniliquin Council valued at $1,290,000.
Loggers who are still in the region will have an opportunity to participate in the ecological thinning trials that will soon commence in some of the national and regional parks.
This Government is actively monitoring the effectiveness of the Red Gum package as it is being rolled-out.
SOLAR BONUS SCHEME
On 24 May 2011 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice regarding the solar bonus scheme. The Minister for Resources and Energy provided the following response:
All IPART recommendations are carefully considered by the Government.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3363
POKER MACHINE REFORM
On 26 May 2011 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding poker machine reform. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised:
The NSW Government does not support the Federal Government's mandatory pre-commitment proposal. There is no evidence that mandatory pre-commitment would effectively address problem gambling, and the unworkable timeframes attached to the proposal are likely to adversely affect venues and consequently the contributions local clubs make to their communities. In addition, the NSW Government is concerned that a mandatory pre-commitment system could drive players away from licensed venues to underground or online gambling sites, where the risk for under-age and problem gambling could be much worse.
The NSW Government is committed to further reducing the prevalence of problem gambling by developing targeted, effective, and evidence-based measures. To that end, the NSW Government supports a system of pre-commitment that is voluntary for the player, venue-based and cost effective.
NATIONAL FIREARMS POLICY WORKING GROUP
On 27 May 2011 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a question without notice regarding the National Firearms Policy Working Group. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised that meetings of the Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group are hosted by each Australian jurisdiction (including the Commonwealth) on a rotating basis and the Group usually meets twice a year. When it is NSW's turn to host a meeting, costs associated with room hire and catering are met. No other funding is provided and there are no NSW Government staff dedicated to the operation of the group.
Costs associated with sending delegates to meetings of the Group are approved in accordance with NSW Government policy, as outlined in NSW Government Circular 2010-28 'Review of Meal, Travelling and Other Allowances'.
The agendas and papers of the Group are circulated on a law enforcement in confidence basis, by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department which provides the Secretariat for the Working Group, and are not public documents.
The Group reports to Ministers on the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management and Police Commissioners on the Council's Senior Officers Group. It is the Senior Officers Group and Ministerial Council who make the decisions in relation to firearms and weapons policy. The Firearms and Weapons Policy Working Group does not have any decision-making power.
GOVERNMENT USE OF CONSULTANTS
On 27 May 2011 the Hon. Amanda Fazio asked the Minister for Finance and Services a question without notice regarding the Government use of consultants. The Minister for Finance and Services provided the following response:
The Department of Finance and Services has engaged two consultants regarding legislation since the change of government. The details are:
Consultant—Price Waterhouse Coopers—$80,000 budgeted—in relation to changes to GST legislation.
Consultant—Philip Chun Access Pty Ltd —$1200 + GST—in relation to changes to Disability (Access to Premises) Standard.
ORANGE PIPELINE PROJECT
On 30 May 2011 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Regional Infrastructure, a question without notice regarding the Orange pipeline project. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
The Orange Pipeline project falls under the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Primary Industries.
Orange City Council is managing the project and is currently undertaking environmental studies, hydrologic modelling, pipeline route selection, community consultation and preliminary designs.
STATE DISASTER PLAN
On 30 May 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a question without notice regarding the State Disaster Plan. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised that the NSW State Disaster Plan and its sub-plans contain an 'all hazard' approach to emergency management within NSW. This includes hazards that could potentially arise as a result of climate change. These plans are focussed on those hazards requiring immediate response and are regularly reviewed to ensure they reflect the current risk profile within NSW. The Emergency Services work closely with the Office of Environment and Heritage and other Government departments on a range of climate change related programs.
3364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The procedures put in place to deal with multiple events and hazards resulting from an emergency event are comprehensive. As previously mentioned, the NSW State Disaster Plan and its sub-plans contain an 'all agency' and 'all hazard' approach to emergency events, and specific agencies are nominated as the 'combat agency' for specific hazards. For example, Fire and Rescue NSW is the combat agency for Urban Search and Rescue. The NSW State Emergency Service is the combat agency for events where the hazard is flood or storm. The list of hazards and associated combat agencies is extensive.
All agencies' situation reports and responses are monitored and coordinated by the State Emergency Operations Controller (SEOCON) and relevant information is relayed through the State Emergency Operations Centre.
Where there is no nominated combat agency for a hazard, the SEOCON (a Deputy Commissioner of the NSW Police Force) is responsible for controlling the response to that event.
NORTH WEST RAIL LINK
On 30 May 2011 the Hon. Greg Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance and Services a question without notice regarding the North West Rail Link. The Minister for Finance and Services provided the following response:
The Minister for Finance and Services is responsible for the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act. This Act sets the framework and procedures to ensure that a consistent approach is taken by acquiring agencies when compulsorily acquiring land.
The Act itself does not confer any powers of acquisition. The power to acquire land is found in legislation administered by each acquiring authority. Decisions about acquisition programs are matters managed by the acquiring authorities.
CLIMATE CHANGE
On 30 May 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice regarding climate change. The Minister for Resources and Energy provided the following response:
Mining brings significant economic benefit and employment opportunities to people living in regional and rural areas of New South Wales.
Were the NSW Government to follow the Greens' proposal of a blanket ban on coal mining, Australia and this State would suffer significant consequences.
A blanket ban on mining would result in the loss of over $11 billion in foreign exchange per annum; it would result in the loss of over 16,000 direct jobs and approximately 60,000 indirect jobs based mostly in rural areas; it would signal the end of a reliable electricity supply in NSW; it would result in the loss of over $1 billion per annum in royalties paid to the Government which in turn are used to fund hospitals, schools and roads; and would consequently result in substantial damage to this State's investment reputation.
It would also result in immediate and considerable increases in electricity prices for the people of New South Wales and the loss of industries which depend on reliable energy.
A ban, as proposed by the Greens, would not be beneficial to this State.
BRAVEHEARTS INC.
On 30 May 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice regarding Bravehearts Inc. The Minister for Education provided the following response:
The New South Wales Government is committed to promoting the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people in New South Wales. The Government is providing nearly $750 million over a five year period to 2014 to implement the reforms outlined in the Keep Them Safe Action Plan.
Child protection teaching and learning activities were first introduced in NSW government schools in 1989 and have been a mandatory part of school programs since 1999. Each year, all teachers in NSW government schools are required to complete updated training in child protection procedures. This ensures there is a high level of awareness of child protection among school staff that is supported by a comprehensive set of policies, procedures and programs.
Bravehearts Inc. is a non-government organisation whose work includes therapeutic support, research, lobbying, campaigning and advocacy services to survivors of child sexual assault. It provides an education program, Ditto's Keep Safe Adventure, which has been presented at a number of NSW government schools. I understand that Ditto's Keep Safe Adventure is suitable for young children from 3 to 8 years.
As part of education programs, schools sometimes use visiting speakers or performers. Decisions about individual presentations, such as the one by Bravehearts, are made at the local level by individual school communities and principals. In isolation, 'one-off' initiatives or events, such as performances, have limited impact. However, external providers and programs can enhance existing, ongoing school child protection education and complement the role of the teacher.
Existing child protection education curriculum materials in NSW government schools provide sufficient support for schools to implement effective programs for students throughout their school years.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3365
MYPEACE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
On 31 May 2011 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding the MyPeace advertising campaign. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised that billboard advertising content is regulated under the Australian Association of National Advertisers Code of Ethics, administered by the Advertising Standards Bureau. In addition, the Commonwealth Parliament is currently undertaking an inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising. Details of this inquiry are available at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee.
I am advised that NSW Government owned or funded buses are not permitted to display advertising depicting political, religious or other similar subject matter.
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN
On 31 May 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding the Murray-Darling Basin. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised:
The NSW Government welcomes a process for developing a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that includes consideration of economic, social and environmental issues.
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL
On 1 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding Royal North Shore Hospital. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
I am advised:
Royal North Shore Hospital is currently funded for 401 acute medical and surgical overnight beds.
The currently proposed number of overnight medical and surgical beds in the redeveloped Royal North Shore Hospital is 434. In addition to these beds, Intensive Care Unit/High Dependency Unit capacity will increase to 45 beds.
As promised prior to the March 2011 election, the Government is developing a campus plan for the hospital which includes considerations of a proposal to increase the number of acute beds.
ONLINE GAMBLING
On 1 June 2011 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding online gambling. The Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts, provided the following response:
Live broadcasting controls are the responsibility of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth's recent commitment to address concerns associated with the promotion of live betting odds during sporting broadcasts has come about due to the exertion of pressure from NSW and other States and Territories through the Council of Australian Governments Select Council on Gambling Reform. The NSW Government welcomes the fact that the Federal Government has finally agreed to take action on this issue.
Similarly, the regulation of online gambling is a Commonwealth responsibility. This is another area in which concerted effort from NSW and other jurisdictions has resulted in the Commonwealth agreeing to review the adequacy of its current regulatory arrangements.
On the related issue of corruption and match-fixing in sport, I support the concerns of my colleague, the Minister for Sport and Recreation, that in order to maintain integrity in sport it is necessary to address exotic betting and player conduct in relation to gambling. I also support the national approach currently being pursued in relation to the issue by State and Territory Sports Ministers.
CHILDCARE CENTRE LICENSING
On 1 June 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, a question without notice regarding childcare centre licensing. The Minister for Family and Community Services provided the following response:
1. Following the Administrative Orders effective from 3 April 2011 the responsibility for Children's Services functions transferred from the Department of Family and Community Services [FACS], to the Department of Education and Communities [DEC]. This includes the regulation of children's services which is covered under Chapter 12 and Chapter 12A of the Act and the funding of children's services.
FACS and DEC have agreed that in order to provide the least disruption to service delivery FACS will, on an interim basis, continue to administer Children's Services Program funding on behalf of DEC. Major policy and funding decisions are the responsibility of the Minister for Education.
3366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
To avoid delay to payments under the Children's Services Program FACS has sent out Service Agreements for funding for the 2011/12 financial year. To ensure services funded under the Children's Services Program receive a payment on 1 July 2011, service providers need to sign the FACS Service Agreement as usual.
2. As noted in Question 1, childcare fees are a responsibility of the Minister for Education and Communities.
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY OFFENCE
On 1 June 2011 the Hon. Helen Westwood asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, a question without notice regarding the drunk and disorderly offence. The Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, provided the following response:
I am advised:
The Government has publicly stated that this new policy is not aimed at vulnerable members of society and that remains the case. There are safeguards built into the Bill, such as ensuring that a move on direction has been issued that is reasonable in the circumstances, that a warning is given about the conduct and that the behaviour must be without reasonable excuse.
Police will develop standard operating procedures to guide them in the appropriate use of the move on directions and offence. The offence is directed at anti-social behaviour at night times in entertainment hubs. Of course, if intoxicated and disorderly behaviour that is sufficiently serious to warrant intervention by the police occurs at other times and places, police will still be able to use the powers if appropriate, but they are intended to be used in the circumstances outlined during the election campaign.
The Bill also requires the Ombudsman to prepare a report on the new offence and the issue of criminal infringement notices for it after a period of 12 months. The Ombudsman's report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and will provide a transparent review of the operation of this new section and its impact (if any) on those vulnerable members of society.
WIND FARMS
On 2 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice regarding wind farms. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure provided the following response:
I am advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has no record of correspondence from the Federal Member for Hume in relation to wind farm developments in the electorate of Hume.
Draft NSW Planning Guidelines: Wind Farms have been prepared and are currently under review.
The Draft Guidelines will be exhibited for public comment following consultation with agencies.
The Draft Guidelines will address issues from the General Purpose Standing Committee No.5 inquiry into rural wind farms including facilitating a rigorous assessment of wind farm proposals and community consultation with affected residents, particularly for those within two kilometres of a proposed wind turbine. A two kilometre zone is flagged as a preferred buffer area unless otherwise demonstrated.
The Draft Guidelines will also address key community concerns and other planning-related issues.
The NSW Government is committed to ensuring wind farm proposals undergo rigorous and transparent assessment processes including extensive public consultation. The Draft Guidelines also include information on community consultation during and after the development of wind farms to assist proponents in undertaking meaningful engagement.
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
On 2 June 2011 the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, a question without notice regarding white-collar crime. The Attorney General, and Minister for Justice provided the following response:
The Member for Baulkham Hills made his comments in his Inaugural Speech, which is traditionally an inspirational speech in which Members comment on a wide range of subjects of interest to them, and are not constrained by Party policy.
The Attorney General and Minister for Justice always welcomes policy input from Members of Parliament and gives careful consideration to Members' proposals.
NARRABRI COAL SEAM GAS DEVELOPMENT
On 2 June 2011 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Development. The Minister for Resources and Energy provided the following response:
The Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services [DTIRIS] advises that no exploration drilling by Eastern Star Gas has been approved nor undertaken in the Pilliga East State Conservation Area.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3367
The Department is aware that in October 2010, Eastern Star Gas applied to the Minister for the Environment for approval to drill two coreholes within the Pilliga East State Conservation Area of Petroleum Exploration Licence 238.
It is understood that the application is currently being assessed by the Minister for the Environment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to s47J (7) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.
Following consent from the Minister for the Environment, DTIRIS will assess the application in relation to the requirements of the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991.
Eastern Star Gas is not permitted to undertake any drilling activities within the State Conservation Area until its application has been determined and access is permitted under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and an activity approval has been granted under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act, 1991 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.
PAEDIATRIC MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
On 2 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding paediatric medical equipment. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
The incidence of heart disease is generally quoted at 0.8% to 1 % of newborns. Given that there are approximately 257 births per day in NSW, there are on average 2 babies born each day with heart disease. NSW has an established network of services for children with cardiac conditions, through the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network and John Hunter Children's Hospital, be they congenital or acquired cardiac problems.
The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network offers advanced cardiothoracic surgical services including a paediatric cardiac catheterisation laboratory at Westmead.
Paediatric Speciality Training is delivered as part of a networked training program in NSW. The networked training program groups rural and metropolitan training sites together to deliver a structured program in accordance with the Royal Australasian College of Physicians curriculum requirements for paediatric and child health training.
The NSW Government provides funding of over $600,000 to Local Health Districts, on a recurrent basis, to support paediatric speciality training networks.
NSW Health has in place robust systems for capital procurement and works with Local Health Districts to prioritise need across the State.
The Government is currently undertaking a review of health priorities. The specific timing of hospital projects will be announced after the budget process is completed in September 2011.
CLIMATE CHANGE
On 2 June 2011 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Trade and Investment, a question without notice regarding climate change. The Minister for Trade and Investment provided the following response:
The NSW Government actively engages the Science sector through the NSW Chief Scientist, Professor Mary O'Kane.
The Office of the Chief Scientist reports to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Trade and Investment, and Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services.
Professor O'Kane is widely regarded throughout the scientific and academic sectors and has strong relationships with both.
Professor O'Kane will play a crucial role in assisting the Government in developing our Industry Action Plans, particularly in the scientific and academic sectors.
The NSW Government is looking forward to working closely with the scientific and academic sectors in NSW to develop our local industries further, particularly in areas where NSW has a relative competitive advantage such as the medical devices cluster that is occurring around the Ryde region.
Professor O'Kane has also chaired Solar Summit 1 and will Chair Solar Summit 2 as we work with industry to fix the mess left behind by Labor's Solar Rebate Scheme debacle.
After 16 years of inaction and innovation via press release, the scientific and academic sectors in NSW can look forward to working with an engaged and proactive NSW Government.
CIGARETTE PACKAGING
On 2 June 2011 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding cigarette packaging. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised:
The NSW Government is committed to reducing the prevalence of tobacco smoking and the impact of second-hand smoke on the community. The Government has a strong suite of tobacco control initiatives in place through the Public Health (Tobacco) Act (2008) and the Smoke-free Environment Act (2000).
3368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
I am advised that, in response to a motion in the NSW Legislative Assembly on 6 May 2011, the Minister for Health stated that, as part of a comprehensive approach to reducing smoking, the NSW Government supported mandated plain packaging with the inclusion of specified requirements for graphic health warnings. I am further advised that the Minister for Health subsequently wrote to the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing to confirm the NSW Government's position.
YOUNGER PEOPLE IN RESIDENTIAL AGED CARE PROGRAM
On 14 June 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Disability Services, a question without notice regarding younger people in residential aged care program. The Minister for Disability Services provided the following response:
The NSW Government is committed to supporting younger people with a disability in, or at risk of entering residential aged care and delivery against the performance benchmark under the National Disability Agreement.
NSW has jointly funded the YPIRAC Program with the Australian Government. The NSW and Australian Governments have each provided a total of $40.6 million over the last five years. Funding of over $25.3 million per annum ($12.6 million from each Government) has now been rolled into the National Disability Agreement funding base and will continue to be used to support younger people with a disability in, or at risk of entering residential aged care.
In April 2011, Disability Services Ministers discussed the future of the YPIRAC Program and agreed that the setting of any new program targets requires joint commitment to additional funding. The Australian Government has not agreed to any additional commitment at this time.
However, we also agreed that good outcomes for this target group cannot be delivered solely by specialist disability services. Disability Officials have been charged with developing an Action Plan that identifies future policy directions to achieve better pathways for younger people in residential aged care in conjunction with other mainstream service systems.
I am committed to working with State and Territory Disability Ministers and the Australian Government and engaging with other portfolio ministers to achieve better outcomes for this group of people.
ONLINE GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY
On 14 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding online Government service delivery. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised that the NSW Police Force is currently working with the NSW Department of Finance and Services and the Roads and Traffic Authority to explore opportunities to streamline and enhance service delivery in future, including online service delivery.
Already, firearm licences and permits are issued through RTA registries across the State. The processing, investigation and adjudication of licence and permit applications are, and will continue to be, managed by the NSW Firearms Registry.
SHENHUA WATERMARK COALMINE
On 14 June 2011 the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW, a question without notice regarding the Shenhua Watermark Coalmine. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure provided the following response:
I am advised by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Minister assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW that he has not received any correspondence from the Deputy Premier and Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, in relation to Shenhua.
I am also advised that in response to standing order 52—order for papers, that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, along with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has provided all documents created since 3 March 2011 relating to the Shenhua Watermark Coal Project. These documents were provided prior to Thursday 9 June 2011.
INTERNET SAFETY
On 14 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice regarding internet safety. The Minister for Education provided the following response:
The Hon. Paul Green refers to the results, released on 1 June 2011, of the Digital Diaries study by the internet security company AVG.
The New South Wales Kindergarten to Year 6 curriculum provides opportunities for students to develop understandings about responsible behaviour and safety when using the internet at school and at home.
The Department of Education and Communities is currently writing a digital citizenship program for primary students based on a successful program that was developed for older students.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3369
RENEWABLE ENERGY
On 16 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice regarding renewable energy. The Minister for Resources and Energy provided the following response:
The Productivity Commission, in its recent report Carbon Emissions Policies in Key Economies, has found that policies encouraging small-scale renewable generation and biofuels have generated little abatement for substantially high cost.
This costly abatement is impacting NSW households and businesses.
IPART notes that the Commonwealth Government's Renewable Energy Target scheme is having a significant impact on electricity price increases, contributing around a third to regulated retail electricity prices from 1 July 2011. This will increase the average household electricity bill by $75.
Due to solar credits, most of these costs will not even support additional renewable energy. Support for small scale solar is significantly more expensive than other renewable energy and low emissions generation options such as wind farms and gas fired generation.
An independent audit commissioned by the Government and undertaken by KPMG has determined a total cost of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme of at least $1.6 billion. This will be funded from the Climate Change Fund and will divert monies from other potentially more cost effective greenhouse gas abatement activities.
CARBON TAX
On 16 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice regarding carbon tax. The Minister for Resources and Energy provided the following response:
Yes, I am aware of the report however the Department has not undertaken any modelling. Such analysis is the purview of Treasury.
Should the scenario outlined by the Australian Coal Association result then it will have a significant impact on jobs and regional communities across the State.
This is one reason why the NSW Government opposes a carbon tax.
We are deeply concerned about the broad impacts the tax may have on jobs and investment and increased cost of living pressures on the people of NSW.
NSW already has an effective and low cost mechanism for carbon pricing—the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme.
The NSW Government does support a responsible shift towards renewables and reducing carbon emissions.
But it cannot come at the expense of jobs, growth and the livelihoods of the people of NSW.
ARMIDALE PUBLIC HOUSING
On 16 June 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, a question without notice regarding Armidale public housing. The Minister for Finance and Services provided the following response:
There are currently 27 vacant public housing properties in Armidale. Of these, 10 are currently undergoing maintenance for re-letting to applicants on the Housing Register. Seventeen are currently undergoing refurbishment and will be leased to Homes North Community Housing who will let these properties as affordable housing to households on low to moderate incomes.
Housing NSW advises that it has delivered around 130 new social housing homes in Armidale under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. It is my understanding that the new stock comprises mostly one and two bedroom units, with a number of these being adaptable to suit the needs of people with disabilities or mobility problems.
PUBLIC DENTAL SERVICES
On 17 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding public dental services. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
The NSW Government will shortly establish a Ministerial Taskforce to develop a NSW Dental Health Action Plan. This plan will cover three key areas: a feasibility study of including dental health in the severe chronic disease management program; establishing a dentistry clinical network through the Agency for Clinical Innovation; and strategies for NSW to take to the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Health Ministers' Council.
The taskforce will also address the issue of a comprehensive dental health prevention campaign. NSW has been at the forefront of promoting and implementing water fluoridation an established and safe public health measure to reduce dental decay.
3370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
SENSASLIM DEFAMATION CASE
On 17 June 2011 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding the SensaSlim defamation case. The Attorney General provided the following response:
I am advised:
The Government is aware that SensaSlim has brought a defamation action against Dr Ken Harvey in the NSW Supreme Court. However, restrictions placed on the Complaints Resolution Panel in relation to court proceedings are contained in the Therapeutic Goods Regulation 1990 (Cwth) and are therefore the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government.
DISABILITY ACCESS
On 17 June 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, a question without notice regarding disability access. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure provided the following response:
• The Access Advisory Committee under the NSW Building Professionals Board has been established in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian Building Codes Board.
• Experts in a range of fields were sought to assist in the Committee's functions, including the fields of disability access, building code compliance, quantity surveying and heritage conservation.
• These experts have associations with a range of professional bodies including the NSW Network of Access Consultants, the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, and the Heritage Council.
• Whilst the Committee contains significant expertise in disability access matters it does not comprise persons advocating positions on behalf of disability organisations as the task of the Committee is to provide assessments against the technical standards contained in the Disability Standards and the Building Code of Australia.
• As at 21 June 2011 no applications have been received for consideration by the Committee.
• Initially, referral of matters involving unjustifiable hardship will be voluntary. Should proposed changes be made to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, referral of all matters involving unjustifiable hardship to the Committee will be mandatory.
GREY NURSE SHARK DISCUSSION PAPER
On 20 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding the grey nurse shark discussion paper. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
I am aware of the concerns that have been raised about this paper. The current discussion paper is only a preliminary step in the consultation process. A series of public information sessions is being held and there will be further public consultation on any proposal to alter grey nurse shark management arrangements. I can assure the Honourable Member that I will make sure that all ongoing consultation is underpinned by the best available scientific information. I will also ensure that this information is presented in a way that is balanced and avoids raising unnecessary concerns with the public.
I encourage all members of the public to lodge constructive submissions on any issues regarding grey nurse shark management.
WATER SAFETY
On 20 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice regarding water safety. The Minister for Education provided the following response:
It is significant to note that although the national drowning figures have shown an increase, in NSW there was a decrease in the twelve month period mentioned.
In NSW, five school aged children drowned as highlighted in the 2010 drowning statistics. However, while every drowning is a tragedy, drowning statistics for NSW are significantly lower than the national average. This decrease in part can be attributed to the success of my Department's School Swimming Scheme. This Scheme is a water safety and learn to swim program that focuses on students in Years 2-6 with an emphasis on water safety and survival. Every NSW public school has the opportunity to attend this program annually, with student tuition provided free of charge.
By the end of 2011, in excess of 98,000 students from over 1,400 schools will have participated in this program. Aquatics is also a mandatory part of the NSW K-6 Personal Development, Health and Physical Education key learning area taught in all NSW public schools.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3371
SCHOOL FUNDING
On 20 June 2011 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice regarding school funding. The Minister for Education provided the following response:
The Department of Education and Communities pays supplementation to schools that exceed their budget for power bills and other utility costs as well as short-term casual teacher relief. Such supplementation has never been automatic. It has always been the case that principals have had to provide supporting evidence before supplementation has been paid.
There is no proposal to force schools to cut literacy programs, sports, equipment, maintenance, or basic supplies.
The Department's policy to provide financial assistance to any school that is in severe financial difficulties remains.
The substantial increase in the price of electricity has put pressure on school budgets. Supplementation requests will need to be justified in terms of the balance of schools funds available and will be paid to eligible schools based upon the level of supplementation reserves available at that time.
BOARDING HOUSE ACCOMMODATION
On 21 June 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services, a question without notice regarding boarding house accommodation. The Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services provided the following response:
1. Under the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 (YACS Act) and Youth and Community Services Regulation 2010 (YACS Regulation), Ageing, Disability and Home Care (ADHC) has an obligation to licence and regulate boarding houses that accommodate two or more people with a disability who require supervision and social habilitation.
Official Community Visitors and ADHC officers regularly visit licensed boarding houses. In particular, ADHC officers regularly monitor licensed premises and work with proprietors to meet the standards required by the Conditions of Licence and the YACS Regulation.
Where a boarding house proprietor does not comply with the conditions of license and the legislation in a way that represents a risk to the safety, welfare and wellbeing of people with a disability, ADHC will not hesitate to take action under the YACS Act. This can include a prosecution or revocation of the licence.
2 & 3. ADHC has 10 Regional Licensing Officers as part of the Boarding House Reform Program who monitor licensed boarding houses through unannounced inspection visits on a six to eight weekly basis.
Additionally, Licensing Officers conduct comprehensive Full Service Reviews of each premises every three years.
Official Community Visitors visit licensed boarding houses approximately once every eight weeks.
4. I am satisfied with the current level and quality of monitoring exercised by ADHC in respect of licensed boarding houses. ADHC takes seriously and fulfils its role in monitoring licensed boarding houses to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of residents.
AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
On 21 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding the Australian Conservation Foundation. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
1. The Australian Conservation Foundation has received funding through an established grants program of the Environmental Trust, which is a separate statutory body, rather than from the Office of Environment and Heritage.
2. The Australian Conservation Foundation has been provided with a total of $130,000, from the Environmental Trust's Lead Environmental Community Group [LECG] grant program as set out in the table below.
Year Amount Purpose
2007/08 Nil 2008/09 $10,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2009/10 $40,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2010/11 $40,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2011/12 $40,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent
3. Refer to (2) above.
4. The LECG grants are conducted on a competitive basis guided by the Environmental Trust Act 1998, and recommended by an independent technical committee in accordance with approved grant guidelines.
3372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
CHILD EXPLOITATION INTERNET UNIT
On 21 June 2011 the Hon. Helen Westwood asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a question without notice regarding the Child Exploitation Internet Unit. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
The NSW Police Force has advised me that the Child Exploitation Internet Unit has an authorised strength of twelve sworn investigators and three unsworn analysts. No investigations have been declined or deferred by the Unit due to insufficient funding or available resources. Supplementary funding and resources are readily available to the Unit from other areas within the Sex Crimes Squad and State Crime Command if required.
It is envisaged that the Unit will be able to maintain its current level of response with its expected allocation from the 2011-12 Budget.
FINGAL HEAD SAND SPIKING
On 21 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a question without notice regarding Fingal Head sand spiking. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
The NSW Police Force has advised me:
On 20 June 2011 it was reported that steel spikes welded to a metal plate had been buried in a trail at Fingal Beach, causing damage to a vehicle driving over it. Police were only notified of this matter after the media had been advised and some considerable time after the actual incident.
The Tweed/Byron Local Area Command is conducting investigations into this matter, however it should be noted that the investigation has been significantly hampered due to the time delay between the incident and the reporting of this crime to police, as well as the evidence being handled by a number of persons.
Police are aware of longstanding tensions between some residents, campers and users of 4WDs on beaches and bushland in the area, however there have been no other incidents of this type reported to Northern Region police to date. The police investigation into this incident is continuing.
WINE RESEARCH CENTRE, WAGGA WAGGA
On 21 June 2011 the Hon. Sophie Cotsis asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding the wine research centre at Wagga Wagga. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
The NSW Government's substantial commitment to the wine centre, worth more than $2 million per annum, has in no way been reduced.
My Department, in conjunction with Charles Sturt University, will continue to run a major program of research relevant to the NSW wine industry and the broader national industry.
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
On 22 June 2011 the Hon. Adam Searle asked the Minister for Finance and Services a question without notice regarding information and communications technology. The Minister for Finance and Services provided the following response:
The development of applications by third parties using NSW Government data is a priority. Releasing new data for the creation of smart phone and web applications is a great example of how government can work together with the community to develop solutions that will help the people of NSW.
A list of currently available applications, along with many NSW Government data sets is located in the NSW Data Catalogue which can be accessed at www.data.nsw.gov.au.
COMMUNITY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
On 22 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding the Community Building Partnership program. The Premier provided the following response:
I am advised:
The Government gave an election commitment that it would conduct the Community Building Partnership program in 2011.
It recognises the significant benefit to communities the program has provided in supporting local community infrastructure which is essential to promote vibrancy, harmony, cohesion and participation, particularly in encouraging inclusion of disadvantaged sections of the community.
The Government is including this commitment in its considerations during preparation of the upcoming Budget in September.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3373
CALVARY MATER HOSPITAL CLINICAL TRIALS
On 22 June 2011 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for the Hunter, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding Calvary Mater Hospital clinical trials. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
Calvary Mater Newcastle (an 'Affiliated Health Organisation' under the Health Services Act 1997) is a Catholic hospital which commenced in 1921 under the Sisters of Mercy and, since 2006, has been owned and operated by Little Company of Mary Health Care. The Hospital is the main cancer treatment facility within Hunter New England Health and a major research hub for the region. Calvary Mater Newcastle conducts some of the world's leading research trials in breast, melanoma and prostate cancers.
There appears to have been an initial misunderstanding among some doctors at Calvary Mater Newcastle regarding the provision of detailed information to patients on methods of avoiding pregnancy and the reproductive risks associated with certain clinical trials and research. Some of these trials involve derivatives of the drug Thalidomide, which is known to cause severe birth defects.
The National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) requires that all medical or scientific research conducted on humans must be approved by an appropriately constituted ethics committee. As such, all research trials being conducted at Calvary Mater Newcastle are subjected to a rigorous assessment and approvals process by both Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee and Calvary Mater Newcastle Clinical Ethics Committee.
The public may be assured of the rigorous approval processes that are in place to ensure the safety and well-being of patients who undergo clinical trials at Calvary Mater Newcastle.
In order to comply with the NHMRC's National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007), all clinical trials and research involving humans in Australia require a Participant Information and Consent Form (known as a PICF) to be provided to all patients prior to their commencement on a trial. If the trial involves a reproductive risk, sufficient information about that risk must be provided to the patient, as a statement within the PICF, to allow the patient to make an informed decision about participating in the trial. In addition to the written information provided in the PICF, doctors are also expected to provide comprehensive and individualised verbal information to patients to fully inform them of all the details of the trial.
In keeping with Catholic philosophy and teaching, since 2007 the preferred language amongst Catholic hospitals throughout Australia where clinical trials are conducted (including St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, the Mater Hospital Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and the Mater Hospital Brisbane) has been incorporated into a statement on reproductive risk. This statement is incorporated into the Master PICF that is used at all other (non-Catholic) hospitals in the Study.
The statement on reproductive risk used at Calvary Mater Newcastle was approved for use in December 2010 by Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee.
The statement on reproductive risk provides specific advice to both male and female participants on the dangers to an unborn child of any drug which is known to cause birth defects, particularly the Thalidomide derivatives such a Pomalidomide and Lenalidomide.
The statement on reproductive risk advises women of child bearing age that they cannot participate in the trial if they are pregnant or breastfeeding. The statement also advises male and female patients to seek their doctor's advice on reliable methods of avoiding pregnancy.
In addition, doctors at Calvary Mater Newcastle who are involved in clinical trials and research are obliged to provide comprehensive written and verbal advice to their patients on any and all risks, including reproductive risk, associated with a clinical trial. Doctors are also obliged to provide detailed advice to male and female patients on reliable methods of avoiding pregnancy.
Calvary Mater Newcastle is fully committed to ensuring that all patients are provided with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed choice before participating in any clinical trial or research to be conducted at the Hospital.
BROADMEADOW SPORTING PRECINCT
On 22 June 2011 the Hon. Mick Veitch asked the Minister for the Hunter a question without notice regarding the Broadmeadow sporting precinct. The Minister for the Hunter provided the following response:
I am advised the decision by the Minister for Sport and Recreation to take control of the Hunter Region Sporting Venues Authority was to allay any concerns about the operation of facilities under the Authorities control, to guarantee outstanding payments to suppliers, and ensure stringent controls are in place regarding all future authority operations.
Newcastle business leaders Mr Glenn Turner (Chair), Mr Keith Lynch and Ms Catherine Tate were appointed to the Board of the Hunter Region Sporting Venues Authority on 6 July. The appointments are for an interim period of up to 12 months, whilst a longer term review of the Authority is undertaken.
Since the removal of the Authority's Board members Bob McGregor AM has been Acting General Manager of the Hunter Region Sporting Venues Authority with a senior executive from the Office of Communities assisting in managing the day-today operations.
3374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The NSW Government is committed to ensuring communities across the State continue to have access to high level sports and sporting facilities, but it is imperative that those in charge meet budgets and are fiscally responsible with taxpayer funds.
SHELLHARBOUR MATERNITY UNIT
On 22 June 2011 the Hon. Sophie Cotsis asked the Minister for the Illawarra a question without notice regarding Shellharbour maternity unit. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
The priority in the provision of maternity services is always the safety of mothers and their babies. A range of maternity services is available across the Illawarra in recognition that local mothers want flexibility about their birthing choices.
The Shellharbour Family Health Centre commenced operations in February 2009, and incorporates antenatal services, post discharge midwifery support and a range of child and family services. The Centre is also a specialist Midwifery and Child and Family Centre for Aboriginal Families.
A publicly funded home-birthing service for women and their families in the Illawarra, which includes the Shellharbour region, has been successfully established and antenatal outreach clinics remain operational at Shellharbour Hospital.
Birthing services are also available at Wollongong Hospital for women of the Illawarra region who choose to give birth in the public hospital system and post-natal care is available at Wollongong Hospital, or women can choose to be visited in their home with the midwifery support program.
SHELLHARBOUR PUBLIC HOSPITAL CHILD AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH INPATIENT UNIT
On 22 June 2011 the Hon. Helen Westwood asked the Minister for the Illawarra a question without notice regarding the Shellharbour Public Hospital Child and Adolescent Mental Health Inpatient Unit. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
Although inclement weather resulted in a delay in completion of the Shellharbour Public Hospital Child and Adolescent Mental Health Inpatient Unit, handover of this facility occurred on 15th July 2011. Commissioning functions are progressing in a timely manner and recruitment of the clinical team has commenced with clinical operations expected to commence in September 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDER'S OFFICE
On 22 June 2011 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding the Environmental Defender's Office. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
1. The Environmental Defender's Office has received funding through established grants programs of the Environmental Trust, which is a separate statutory body, rather than from the Office of Environment and Heritage.
2. Through an open, competitive process over four annual rounds, the Environmental Defender's Office was successful in gaining funding under two Environmental Trust programs.
Between 2006 and 2010, it was provided $285,000 under the Trust's Lead Environmental Community Groups grant program as set out in the table below:
Year Amount Purpose
2006/07 $45,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2007/08 $45,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2008/09 $75,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2009/10 $60,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent 2010/11 $60,000 Administrative costs e.g. rent
During this period, it was also awarded $233,097 for three Environmental Education programs as set out in the table below:
Year Amount Purpose
2007/08–2008/09 $63,440 over 2 years To develop a booklet and workshops to educate the community about regulation of mining in NSW.
2008/09–2009/10 $94,657 over 2 years To develop a plain-English publication providing both an overview and critical analysis of the private conservation options.
2008/09–2009/10 $75,000 over 2 years To develop and publish “The Rural Landholders Guide to Environmental Law”.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3375
3. None of the funds granted were used in any court proceedings.
4. All Environmental Trust programs are subject to periodic evaluation and review. The Lead Environment Community Groups program is due to be evaluated in 2012/13 and a decision on the continuation of the program will be made following that review.
WOLLONGONG COURTHOUSE
On 23 June 2011 the Hon. Adam Searle asked the Minister for the Illawarra a question without notice regarding Wollongong courthouse. The Attorney General provided the following response:
I am advised:
The Department of Attorney General and Justice has an ongoing program of work to ensure that Wollongong Courthouse is safe and does not have any unacceptable risks. In 2010 and 2011 projects were undertaken to:
• stabilise a retaining wall between the court property and the adjoining church land
• improve the room used for the temporary storage of weapons to ensure that it can contain
• any accidental discharges
• upgrade the fire exits and fire doors
• improve emergency lighting and signage
• provide additional training and consult with staff on fire procedures
• commence repairs to the concrete facade of the building.
Further works are planned as part of the 2011/2012 maintenance program.
FRINGE BENEFITS TAX
On 23 June 2011 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice regarding the fringe benefits tax. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:
The Local Government Act 1993 requires each council in NSW to develop a long term financial plan. It is expected councils will factor in the additional costs of the fringe benefits tax to determine likely impacts on the budget and to make adjustments as necessary.
BYRILL CREEK DAM
On 23 June 2011 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Road and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding Byrill Creek dam. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
Tweed Shire Council, as the local water utility, is responsible for ensuring the security of the Tweed Shire's water supply.
I have been advised that, in line with Best Practice Management Guidelines, Tweed Shire Council has adopted and is currently implementing a Demand Management Strategy, which includes:
• employment of a full-time demand management specialist; and
• undertaking specific demand management actions, including:
• adopting a minimum residential rainwater tank size of 5,000 litres;
• implementing a shire-wide leak detection program;
• conducting an audit to determine high volume water consumer's; and
• instituting a rebate program for residential water saving devices.
Council estimates that through the BASIX and WELS (Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards) schemes it should be able to defer the requirement for an additional bulk water source until 2023. The demand management strategies outlined above should delay that requirement even further.
BULLI HOSPITAL
On 23 June 2011 the Hon. Steve Whan asked the Minister for the Illawarra a question without notice regarding Bulli Hospital. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
I refer the honourable member to my response of Wednesday 22 June 2011 in relation to a Question Without Notice concerning Bulli Hospital, and to a response to a Question on Notice in the Legislative Assembly (LA0021) on this subject.
Questions without notice concluded. 3376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CONDUCT DIVISION APPOINTMENTS
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, pursuant to clause 4 of Schedule 2A of the Judicial Officers Act 1986:
(1) This House nominates Ken Moroney AO APM and Rosemary Sinclair AO as community representatives for appointment to a panel of the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales.
(2) A message be sent requesting the Legislative Council's concurrence in the nominations.
Legislative Assembly SHELLEY HANCOCK 2 August 2011 Speaker
Consideration of message set down as an order of the day for a future day.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Report: Inquiry into Services Provided or Funded by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care
Debate resumed from 20 June 2011.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.05 p.m.]: First, I acknowledge the chair of the Committee, the former member of this House Ian West, who did a sterling job of chairing the committee. Both the quality and the volume of submissions we received illustrated that this was an important inquiry into a matter that impacts on the lives of many people, not only those with disabilities but also their families and the services and organisations that provide services to and advocate on behalf of those in our community who have disabilities. One matter that was constantly raised in submissions and by various witnesses in the hearings was the lack of existing data and the reliability of existing data, although the existing data may not be adequate. There was a view that, although some data has been collected, it has not been particularly useful in helping the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and various government and non-government agencies to plan the provision of services for people with disabilities in New South Wales.
Other matters that were strongly brought to the committee's attention related to supported accommodation, and respite and attendant care for those in the community who rely on care for their everyday needs. That care enables them to get up of a morning, to travel to work, often to do their shopping and to provide basic things for themselves such as meals. When the required care is unreliable, inadequate and lacks quality, that impacts upon the life of the person with the disability as well as upon his or her family and household.
My many years of experience in the provision of disability services did not inure me to the effect of watching one of the witnesses who participated in the inquiry cope with her child who has a disability. His disability caused him to constantly pull at her hair and cause her pain, but she did not even flinch. She continued to address the committee in spite of the distress and anxiety of her disabled child being manifested in his constantly pulling at his mother's hair. Without anything being said, each member of the committee realised just how difficult the lives of carers can be. Usually carers are family members and more often than not are the mothers of disabled people. It was one of the most difficult experiences to witness in a hearing and I was merely listening and watching—not dealing with this child's daily distress and behaviour.
I have absolute admiration for that witness. I am not sure whether I could really give the level of commitment and time required to care for a child that clearly has such high needs. I have raised a child who has a disability, but my daughter's disability does not create the same demands as the demands evinced by that child. I appreciate greatly the witness being willing to endure that behaviour while speaking to the committee about her needs, her son's needs and her family's needs. Much of her evidence concerned the need for respite and the need for parents, particularly as they age, to know that their children who have a disability will receive quality care, notwithstanding the changing needs of their children as they mature. The parents of children who have severe and profound disabilities face the distressing fact that, after they have passed on, their children will still require assistance and care in adulthood. As a society, we must try to find answers, support families and assure parents as they go to their graves that their adult children with a disability will be cared for and will have quality of life. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3377
Most of us understand the issues associated with the quality and adequacy of service provision in the city, but many may not know that difficulties experienced in the city are magnified in regional and remote parts of the State. Submissions and testimony confirmed that fact. Clearly we must devise ways of providing quality services in remote and regional areas while recognising the understandable difficulties associated with achieving that aim. When very few people with precise and complex service requirements live in a designated area, it is difficult for agencies to provide appropriately qualified staff in the required numbers.
For example, when a worker who has been allocated service provision becomes unwell and is unable to attend to a person with a disability, an agency is required to find another worker to substitute and must ensure that the replacement worker has the adequate skills, knowledge and qualifications to provide the requisite care. That level of resources is not always available. It will take considerable effort of behalf of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to find appropriate solutions. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that solutions must be found. All members of the committee agreed that solutions must be found. People with disabilities rely for their quality of life upon quality services, qualified workers and carers who do care. That is the challenge facing Ageing, Disability and Home Care.
Most submissions and most witnesses involved in the inquiry acknowledged that a vast improvement in the provision of disability services has taken place. They were certainly very supportive of the Stronger Together Program phases one and two, and they were very complimentary of previous Ministers who drove the reform program and the huge increase in funding. John Della Bosca, who attended the DisabiliTea this morning in the Jubilee Room in Parliament House, originally drove the program. Ministers who succeeded him also ensured the delivery of essential services to people with a disability. I commend a former Minister for Disability Services, the Hon. Peter Primrose, who has been a very strong advocate for Stronger Together phase two and who ensured that it was funded at the appropriate level in the last budget of the previous Government for the delivery of quality services to people with disabilities. I am very pleased to support the committee's recommendations.
The committee also considered the issue of annually reporting to Parliament on expenditure and implementation of Stronger Together phase two. I look forward to the current Government and current Minister, the Hon. Andrew Constance, delivering to Parliament the annual report of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. It is important to deliver Stronger Together phase two as promised because that is the expectation of the community. I commend all members of the committee for their efforts and contributions to the inquiry. I also thank the staff for their commitment and hard work that has resulted in producing a really excellent report.
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [5.20 p.m.], in reply: In concluding discussion on this important report I thank the Hon. Marie Ficarra, Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Helen Westwood—who made an impressive contribution—not only for their contributions to the inquiry process but also for their speeches in this place, which drew attention to some of the important points that were made throughout the inquiry. I thank the Hon. Marie Ficarra for reminding the House of the heartbreaking number of carers that exist in our State. This inquiry brought to light the daily challenges faced by the legions of carers in New South Wales—nearly 750,000 that we know about. We also know that there are more who are not recognised or registered. We must never forget that for every person that requires assistance from Ageing, Disability and Home Care, there are also carers who face the bureaucratic obstacle course of ensuring that the basic needs of their loved ones are met. Many of those carers took the daunting step of presenting to the inquiry. I again thank them for their courage in doing so and for their unique insight, the words of wisdom that they offered throughout that process, and for the respect with which they were treated by committee members and staff.
The Hon. Marie Ficarra highlighted also the need for improved departmental communication to ensure that those with a disability have an increased awareness of their right to ask for help. This need for improved communication is reflected in recommendations 23, 24, 28 and 37 in the report, which I strongly commend to the House. My colleague Dr John Kaye referred to the need for a knowledge base and the imperative to make people aware of the options that are available to them. He spoke also about the ongoing issues of managing the transition from home to school or from school to work, from hospital to home and, in some cases, into group homes. Dr John Kaye has a keen interest in education and in managing those difficult transitions. Change is challenging at the best of times, but when dealing also with a disability change can be incredibly unsettling. Our system of care must acknowledge that and implement early planning mechanisms to ensure that transitions are made as soon and as smoothly as possible.
I thank Dr John Kaye for reminding the House what this report really boils down to; that is, respect for universal human rights and, in particular, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 3378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
Disabilities. At all times that should be at the forefront of our planning processes. How do we provide services that do not just respect human rights but also exemplify and even enhance them? The Hon. Helen Westwood reminded us of the strength of character, commitment and love that are required in many circumstances for those who deal with the daily issues of persons with disability. That is why respite, which is such an important issue, must be addressed as a matter of urgency. This report and its accompanying 55 recommendations are a genuine attempt by all parties to improve our system of care so that these basic but essential human rights are respected at all times.
Many of the recommendations seek to cut through the seemingly endless amounts of red tape that in some cases needlessly exist in our current system. The recommendations attempt to introduce some consistency across services and to identify key strategies for improving the efficiency and usability of the system. They cover a broad range of areas that cover the spectrum of activities in the life of someone living with a disability— from individualised funding options to transport services, and from education to housing. They recognise also the needs and differences across the State. We are only too well aware of the importance of knowing the differences between rural and metropolitan areas. In light of recent media reports regarding the licensing of boarding houses across the State I eagerly await the implementation of recommendation 50, which states:
That the Minister for Disability Services ensure that people with disability who reside in boarding houses receive person-centred planning and that the services provided to people who reside in boarding houses comply with the New South Wales Disability Service Standards.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge that the Government is already taking steps to implement a person-centred service system under the Living Life My Way scheme. Yesterday Ageing, Disability and Home Care began carrying out consultations in an effort to obtain feedback from people with a disability, their families and carers, and members of the community in order to improve disability services. I wholeheartedly commend that important step. I note also recent statements from the Minister for Disability Services that the Government is committed to shaping a client-directed service system in order to ensure that people with a disability, their families and carers are front and centre of any decision-making process. I welcome those commitments as a great first step but there is still a long way to go. I am sure that many people are awaiting the Government's response to these recommendations.
I have previously raised another important issue relating to complaints handling. I refer to recommendations 46 and 47 of the report to which I referred some time ago in an adjournment speech. Recently we saw the successful implementation of national building standards for access—a step that took nearly a decade but that has finally happened, which is another great step forward. All 55 recommendations in this report seek to bring consistency, compassion and creativity to a system of care that has resulted in undue hardships being placed on the most vulnerable members of our community. The 55 recommendations are practical, measurable and compassionate and I look forward to their full implementation. Once again I thank all those who contributed to the inquiry—committee members, staff and the many people who made submissions. I thank in particular those brave people who live with these conditions every day and who gave evidence before the inquiry. I am honoured to commend this report to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
SESSIONAL ORDERS
Time Limits to Debate on Government Bills
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.28 p.m.]: The point I was about to make earlier was that substance is not measured by the length of one's speech. In reality its contents, its message and the passion of the speaker determine whether it has both merit and longevity in the minds of members of the public. The reverse situation is that the longer a speech and the more loquacious a speaker, the more likely it is to be forgotten. This motion is designed to ensure that sufficient time is allowed for members to get their message across, to put their case and to inform other members of the House and the public.
This motion is designed to ensure that our time and resources are not wasted unnecessarily by lengthy contributions. Many other places have accepted the need to control the length of time that people speak. As has 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3379
already been pointed out, since 1894 time limits have been applied in the New Zealand House of Representatives. Prior to the introduction of time limits in that Parliament in 1876, Mr W. L. Rees spoke for some 24 hours. Other members said that the House of Lords has adopted time limits for speeches, and since 1919 time limits have been applied in the Senate of our Federal Parliament.
They were introduced after Labor Senator Albert Gardiner spoke for 12 hours in 1918. In light of the Hon. Luke Foley's contribution one wonders whether he will now make representations to his Federal counterparts about the abolition of time limits in the Senate. Notwithstanding the hyperbole used in this place, it cannot be said that the procedure used in the Senate represents the destruction of democracy. Indeed, the opposite is true; the application of time limits allows members to speak in an appropriate and considered manner.
Parliament is not the only arena in which time limits are applied. Various practice directions of many courts impose specific time limits and they are also applied in directions hearings prior to a trial. Advocates are required to indicate how long they will speak in their addresses and they may be required to justify the time they take. For example, time limits are applied in special leave applications in the High Court. Indeed, if one appears in such a hearing one is confronted by green, orange and red lights on the front of the bench. The time limits are strictly applied and justices will refuse to hear an advocate once the red light comes on. That approach teaches advocates the discipline of getting their point across in a specified time. Even The Greens members of this place appreciate the importance of history and tradition. However, the simple reality is that we have a responsibility to the people of New South Wales to resolve matters in an efficient and effective manner, and this motion will achieve that.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.32 p.m.]: I oppose this motion because, quite simply, it is not necessary. Standing Order 98 relates to no longer hearing a member and states:
(1) Any member, except a member who has already spoken in the debate, may move without notice that a member who is speaking "Be no longer heard".
We already have the opportunity to stop a member who is making an unnecessarily lengthy speech, who is being boring or repetitious or who for whatever reason is deemed by the majority of members to be trifling with the time of the House. Standing Order 99, which deals with the closure of debate and which is seldom used, states:
(4) Before putting the question, the Chair will advise the House to consider whether the motion, if agreed:
(a) is an abuse of the rules or conventions of the House,
(b) would deny the rights of the minority, or
(c) is an abuse of the standing orders.
That is what we should be considering today—the rights of the minority. Members of the Legislative Council are elected to this place by way of a proportional representation system, which means that small interest groups across the community can elect people who will represent their views in this House. It is not a matter of the majority determining whose views will be heard and who will be silenced in this House but that is the purpose of this motion. This motion is a sledgehammer response to the recent debate on the contentious Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill. That legislation constituted an attack on the core rights of workers and on the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission. It was also an attack on one of the core principles that underpins the Australian Labor Party. Of course, if the Government had any commonsense it would have anticipated the community's reaction to that legislation.
I will take members through the occasions on which these standing orders have been resorted to in the past. Standing Order 98 was used most recently on 15 December 1995 and on 16 December 1995 when the Hon. Franca Arena and Mr Ian Cohen moved that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile be no longer heard. Those motions were resolved in the negative with three members supporting the question and 32 rejecting it in divisions. It was the view of the House then, and I believe it should still be the view of the House now, that minority interests in the State who elect their own representatives to this House have the right to have their voice heard without censorship or time limit and that we should do nothing to reduce the quality of debate in this place. Standing Order 99 was resorted to a number of times on 25 November 1897 in respect of the Australasian Federation Enabling Act and on 5 September 1900 in respect of the Cobar to Wilcannia Railway Bill.
Dr John Kaye: That would have been a hotly contested issue. 3380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: In fact it was because the House divided equally and the Deputy-President cast his vote with the noes and declared the question to have been negatived. Members should reflect on the date on which members have resorted to using that standing order. The question was put on 25 September 1901 in respect of the women's franchise legislation, and unfortunately in that case it was agreed to. The gag was again applied on 16 December 1902 in respect of a fisheries bill and on 19 November 1905 in debate on legislation dealing with home rule for Ireland. One wonders why the Legislative Council of New South Wales was debating such legislation. The last occasion on which the gag motion was put was in respect of legislation dealing with the railway commissioner's appointment. The fact that it was 105 years before it was used again indicates the seriousness with which the members of this House have viewed the use of the gag, whether it be in respect of individual members or debates on legislation.
The House referred a range of issues to the Procedure Committee, including private members' business and the sitting pattern, and a report was produced in June 2011. The committee discussed whether time limits should be imposed on speeches in debates on the second and third reading of Government bills but could not reach a consensus and the issue was deferred. However, the day after the committee's report was tabled and without consulting any other member of the committee the Hon. Duncan Gay gave notice of this motion knowing full well that the committee did not reach a consensus. That demonstrates this Government's arrogance and its complete disregard for the role of the Procedure Committee. It is quite disgraceful that we have not had a full debate in the Procedure Committee about this matter. It is quite disgraceful that we are overreacting in one instance when we have remedies within the standing orders—not in the sessional orders—to address the issue of debates proceeding for too long or individual speakers abusing their speaking rights.
I will talk also about some of the issues that were raised earlier in this debate. There was reference to the House of Lords as an example of a Chamber that has restrictions on the time that members can speak. That probably would have to be the worst example of a House to compare to the Legislative Council of New South Wales, simply because by the time our President is sitting in the chair we can have a maximum of only 41 members on the floor of the Chamber. The House of Lords has over 600 members. It may well be reasonable in a chamber of 600 members to have some form of speaking limit. In any case, I argue that speaking limits in other Chambers are irrelevant, whether they are reasonably comparable to the Legislative Council or not.
We should be looking at our history in this Chamber and at what we have done in the past. It was not deemed to be a problem in the last 16 years when Labor was in government when many members gave long speeches. Ian Cohen was well known for giving long speeches, as was the Hon. Peter Breen. The Hon. Catherine Cusack has given very lengthy speeches at very late hours of the night. Members did not come here the next day complaining that she was wasting the time of the House, or that any other members who speak lengthily and late into the night are wasting the time of the House. Members did not talk about the cost of keeping the Chamber open for all those hours. Members did not express concern about the personal cost to employees of the Legislative Council being kept here until all hours of the night.
After 16 years where every member was given a free voice to talk for as long and in as detailed a manner as they wanted, all of a sudden it is not acceptable because it inconveniences the government of the day. That is what a House of review is supposed to do: it is supposed to review the government of the day. If that causes inconvenience in some way, shape or form to the government of the day, that is unfortunate, but that is the nature of Houses of review. That is the nature of a House elected under the system of proportional representation. It is pretty poor for members to talk about the cost of staff and the personal cost to employees as a result of lengthy speeches on a bill to cap pay increases for those very same employees and in fact cause them, if they wanted to have anything more than a 2.5 per cent pay increase, to trade off their existing terms and conditions of employment. That has to be one of the worst pieces of hypocrisy I have seen in recent times.
As the honourable Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his speech, this really comes down to the issue of accountability. We have a history in recent years, in particular under the Labor Government over the last 16 years, of the Legislative Council holding the government of the day to account and making sure that it is accountable for its actions. That has been done in a number of ways. It has been done through general purpose standing committees. The only time that the Government held the position of chair of one of those committees was when I was elected as the chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 because the Liberal and National party members turned up so late to the meeting that we had the vote before they bothered to front. In every other instance those committees were chaired either by the Opposition or by minor party members. Under the new regime of accountability of the O'Farrell Government those general purpose standing committees are now captives of the Government. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3381
There has been a failure to proceed with filling the position of the parliamentary budget officer. The recruitment process for that is well down the track. Now we have a committee to review the role of the parliamentary budget officer. Everybody knows that while that committee is having a review to see what happens to the future role of the parliamentary budget officer or even if the role of parliamentary budget officer will exist, the expanded Legislative Assembly committee system has a huge range of new committees eyeing off the new office space that has been fitted out for the parliamentary budget office, rubbing their hands together and saying, "Wait until that committee reports and we will get nice new state-of-the-art offices on level 6." How does that go toward accountability? The Government sets up a committee to recommend the abolition of a position that would hold the Government accountable.
In this Chamber after 105 years we have seen the Government use the gag motion, as well as the very restrictive conditions that were put on the procedure of the Committee of the Whole that evening, which basically meant that if members left the Chamber they could be locked out if there was a series of divisions. That did not eventuate, but it could have. It could have eventuated if we had gone into a series of divisions, one after the other, but we did not. Now we see the Government wanting to change the time available for debate on Government bills. This is a series of measures designed to reduce the accountability and transparency of the O'Farrell Government. It is an attempt to use the sheer brute force of numbers to change the way in which this House operates.
Can members imagine the screams that would have emanated from Duncan Gay and Michael Gallacher if the Labor Government had attempted to do this at any time over the past 16 years? We did not attempt to do that because we support open democracy. We recognise that this Chamber represents a whole range of diverse views and diverse interests. We know that this House represents a broad spectrum of views, from the most conservative views held on some moral issues to very libertarian views held by many others represented in this Chamber. We know that this Chamber is supposed to represent the make-up of the whole of New South Wales. It is not supposed to be the conservative crossbench and the conservative Government getting together to make sure that other people do not get to put their point of view. To say that you can still put your point of view but only within the time constraints imposed is, quite frankly, not good enough. That is still an attempt to gag democracy in this Chamber.
There are plenty of opportunities under existing standing orders to achieve exactly what the Government wants to achieve. What the Government will not say about this attempt to change the sessional orders is that it is not going to override Standing Order 98 and Standing Order 99. They can still have time limits on debate if this motion gets up, but they can still move the gag motion and they can still gag individual members. The Government does not want only the double-barrelled shotgun that it already has in Standing Order 98 and Standing Order 99 to shoot democracy down in this House.
The Government wants a semiautomatic weapon that also includes changes to sessional orders about gagging individuals, gagging debate, setting time limits for speeches on second readings, setting procedures for the Committee of the Whole and setting time limits for third reading speeches. It wants to stamp on democracy and say to the people of New South Wales who did not vote for the Liberals or the Nationals that in this Chamber their views and voices do not have the right to be fully heard. That, quite frankly, is a very shameful situation. I want to return to a couple of issues raised in debate. It was very telling that the Hon. Duncan Gay used that old furphy, which the Hon. Luke Foley pulled him up on, that people can read out lists of correspondence in the House. He knew that was not true.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What also is not true is that Luke Foley did not pull me up on it. He was the silent sentinel.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Not only do we have standing orders on tedious repetition, we also have Standing Order 91 (5), which specifically prohibits that sort of behaviour. It was pointed out to the Hon. Duncan Gay by the Hon. Luke Foley that that standing order presided, and the fact that he said it does not shows the level of honesty that he has brought to this debate. The Hon. Trevor Khan thought he was running a debating school. He spoke about the style of debate and how he would like to tutor members in debating styles. Not once did he speak about democracy in this House. Not once did he speak about accountability. Yet again he reverted to his Perry Mason mode, which might have been really spectacular at Tamworth courthouse but it does not wash with anyone listening to the substance of what he is saying rather than the way in which he tries to address the Chamber.
This is a move to destroy the accountability claimed to be so wanted by the O'Farrell Government. The last thing the O'Farrell Government wants is to be held up to scrutiny by its opponents in the Legislative 3382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
Council. This Chamber has a very long and proud history, which those opposite want to throw away. Do those opposite care about the Legislative Council? Are they receiving these orders directly from Barry O'Farrell's office? It seems nothing happens without being ticked off by Barry O'Farrell's office or Andrew Stoner's office in the case of The Nationals. The people who have benefited from the standing and sessional orders of the Legislative Council, particularly long-term members who have benefited over the past 16 years, should be ashamed of attempting to trash a fine tradition because they did not like a single debate in this place.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No self-control.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: For the Hon. Duncan Gay to say it was a lack of self-control is absolute garbage. He has been here longer than most of us—some would say too long but I am not going to enter into that—and he has seen lots of things happen. He has seen members of The Nationals talk for hours and he has seen members of the Liberal Party talk for hours but when those who are not members of those two parties want to talk for a long time about a matter that affects their core constituency—the people who elected them to this Chamber—it does not matter to him. Double standards are not good enough; I want to be able to hold the Government to account. The standing orders are still in place, so this pathetic and grubby attempt will give the Government three goes at shutting down debate, stifling opposition and preventing people from having a full say about things they strongly believe in.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was the subject of a gag motion. At that time the Coalition, the Labor Party and most of the crossbenches stood united and said it was inappropriate to gag individual members. I urge him to think about what is being done today. The Government's actions, because it did not like two members of The Greens speaking for a long time on a bill, is a wrong-footed approach to the future running of the Legislative Council. How is the Government going to ensure accountability? How is the Government going to ensure that minority voices have a say in what goes on in this Chamber? I urge all members to reject this motion. It is an overreaction. It is unnecessary and strongly antidemocratic.
Dr JOHN KAYE [5.53 p.m.]: I speak to the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Government to impose time limits on debate on the question for the second or third reading of a bill in the New South Wales upper House. No doubt this motion will become a matter of great regret for Government members. In 10 years time they will look back on the handiwork of the Hon. Duncan Gay and Barry O'Farrell and ask, "Why did we tarnish our reputation as Liberals? Why did we tarnish our reputation as people who are supposed to stand up for freedom and the rights of free speech? Why did we tarnish our reputation by allowing the Hon. Duncan Gay and Barry O'Farrell to lead us down this path?
Why did we allow ourselves to create a culture in the upper House where debate can be shut down, where debate is limited and where freedom of speech, accountability and the inquisition of the upper House into the legislation of the Government are so hamstrung by time limits? Why did we create a tool for use by the majority to oppress the minority? Why did we ride roughshod over the raison d'être of the upper House? Why did we ride roughshod over the accountability of the upper House—that is, accountability brought about by the combination of majority and minority voices? Why did we trash that essential component of democracy in an independent, vibrant and, at times, rambunctious and difficult upper House?"
The Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party will regret their decision to vote for this motion—which I understand they are considering—more than anyone else. They will look back and say, "It was all very well and good when we had a cosy relationship with the Government but what happens when that relationship evaporates?" Because it will inevitably evaporate through change of government or change in circumstance. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is now present in the Chamber and although my remarks are addressed through the President they are directly germane to his vote in this matter. How will an even smaller minority than The Greens feel when they are oppressed by the majority?
This motion should be defeated for three key reasons. The first relates to its force in reducing the ability of this Chamber to explore complex and controversial issues. It will undermine the ability of the New South Wales upper House to execute its charge of being a House of accountability: a House of detailed and, at times, difficult examination of legislation. That is particularly true for small parties with few members in the upper House. Presently no party in the upper House has only one member but the three parties that are not Government or Opposition parties have all had only one member at times.
Under this motion during a second reading speech we would be allowed one 20-minute evaluation of a piece of legislation. In the overwhelming majority of legislation that is a very generous allotment. However, 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3383
sometimes the intent of legislation runs so counter to the grain of the reason for The Greens, the Christian Democratic Party or the Shooters and Fishers Party being in this Chamber, it rubs so violently against our ideological and spiritual commitments, that we need more than 20 minutes—not just to express outrage but to explore the legislation and help the House to understand the full range of its implications.
For example, members will shortly look at the "three strikes and you're out" legislation. I do not wish to anticipate that legislation and run afoul of the standing orders but I went through it this afternoon with a member of my staff. That complex legislation runs into territory on which both Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I have a great deal to say—and in the case of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile a great deal of experience—namely, regulating the liquor industry. How do we deal with the issue of people who become trapped by self-harming liquor consumption? It will be tricky for Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and his colleague the Hon. Paul Green to traverse that legislation in 40 minutes—it may even take longer—and for me to fully explicate my concerns it will take at least 20 minutes and possibly longer.
The legislation will set in place a dramatic change, which the Christian Democratic Party may support, but I am not anticipating their view on that. We will be restricted on this complex legislation. The legislation deals with matters of great concern to those who are concerned about the health and welfare of our community. It expresses a certain ideological approach—there is nothing wrong with that—and that ideological approach may run up against what Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile believes. Other legislation will come through.
In the previous Parliament the House debated legislation about ethics, same-sex adoption and the rights of same-sex partners. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I strongly disagree on all those matters. In those days Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Gordon Moyes spent a long time exploring the issues in detail, as was their right, to the benefit of the people of New South Wales. I believe they were deeply wrong on those matters, but The Greens believe that it is to the benefit of the community that those voices, eyes, minds and hearts were brought to bear in their full capacity on legislation. They were not corralled by time limits or threats. A previous speaker referred to it as being corralled with a triple-barrelled shotgun.
I support the standing order that provides that we cannot read from phone books. It was totally disingenuous of the Deputy Leader of the Government to suggest that members read from phone books or engage in boring repetition in this Chamber. I have been here for 4½ years and I know that any attempt at boring repetition instantly brings about a point of order. There are 41 members of this Chamber who will instantly take a point of order—
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Perhaps 40.
Dr JOHN KAYE: That is a good point; I stand corrected on the arithmetic. Forty members would take a point of order on a member who did that. We do not do that in this Chamber and that is to our benefit. However, we need time. The Deputy Leader of the Government referred to my speeches and those made by Mr David Shoebridge. I will not talk about my speech—that is for others to judge—but I will talk about Mr David Shoebridge's speech. I invite all members of this House to refer to Hansard—
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Oh no.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Hear me out. I invite members to take any five-minute slice or any 350-word slice of Mr David Shoebridge's speech and read it. If they did so they might learn something, because it was erudite. Not only that; I defy members to find another five-minute slice that contains repetition. In a speech that was almost six hours long Mr David Shoebridge went through the legislation and its implications from go to whoa, and every bit of it was a detailed analysis. I defy anyone to find any repetition in that speech on a controversial matter. More than half the members of this Chamber—it was exactly half plus one—supported the legislation; the other half strongly opposed it. To a woman and man on the other half of the Chamber, we felt strongly about that.
I defy any member to say that the speech or any aspect of it was trivial. I defy any member to show me repetition or anything trivial in the speech—anything other than what was directed at the lives and welfare of the people of this State whom we are charged with protecting that was not being followed in the speech. It is appalling that Mr David Shoebridge's speech—I do not care what members say about my speech—is being used as justification for stamping on democracy. Mr David Shoebridge's speech was a fine piece of work. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is grimacing. I recall that he was not in the Chamber for much of the speech. 3384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: I heard it.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Perhaps the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is grimacing because he disagreed with the speech, but I defy him to find any repetition. I invite him to do so, because there was none. I listened to the entire speech, and I learnt more about industrial relations than I had known before. The previous Government introduced changes to workers compensation that The Greens felt would undermine the rights of working people. At that time I was a staff member for a Greens member of this Parliament. I recall working late into the night on that legislation, with very long speeches. To the previous Government's credit—I have to say that the previous Government committed a range of outrages against democracy and a range of outrageous policies—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Disgrace.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the Hon. Amanda Fazio's interjection. One thing the previous Government never did was seek to shut down debate, even when it was vitriolic or embarrassing to the Government, as it was on workers compensation. The previous Government took hits amongst its support base through what was happening in the Chamber. But the previous Government saw a limit on the sorts of atrocities one can commit. The same cannot be said of the current Government and its friends and colleagues. They see no limit on that. It must be remembered that the Deputy Leader of the Government said that my speech and those of Mr David Shoebridge and, I presume, Labor members are responsible for this motion. He said that we shut down the ability of other members to speak.
I recall that we all came into the Chamber at 9.00 a.m. on the Saturday morning. At about 9.05 a.m. it was not the Leader of the Opposition, Mr David Shoebridge, Dr John Kaye or the Hon. Amanda Fazio who moved the gag motion—it was the Deputy Leader of the Government who moved the gag motion. He has moved this motion. The Deputy Leader of the Government is nodding in agreement. He shut down the conversation; he shut down examination of the legislation, which I believe will lead to an appalling impact on public sector workers and the community. Now he is trying to blame other members who exercised their democratic right to make speeches. Perhaps the length of the speeches did not please the Deputy Leader of the Government; nonetheless the speeches were within the standing orders. Now the Deputy Leader of the Government is blaming us for his trampling on the rights of speech.
My second observation is that not one Government member sought the call, with the exception of the Minister, who made his second reading speech and spoke in reply. There were plenty of opportunities for Government members to seek the call. Indeed, at times there was a long gap between members getting the call, partly because the members opposing the legislation were busy putting together their speeches. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, the Hon. Niall Blair and the Hon. Charlie Lynn did not speak on the legislation, and the Government Whip did not seek the call. It is completely misleading for the Leader of the House to suggest that The Greens shut down that debate. This amendment to the sessional orders is appalling because it will not achieve the claimed efficiency. Let me explain that carefully in small words. The reality is that if a 20-minute time limit is imposed members will talk for 20 minutes. If the speaking time is unlimited, most members will talk for 10 minutes or five minutes; occasionally they will talk for six hours. I have been here for 4½ years.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It seems longer.
Dr JOHN KAYE: It seems longer to the Deputy Leader of the Government because he does not like what I say. The Government is trying to silence me, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Mr David Shoebridge, the Hon. Cate Faehrmann and all The Greens because it does not like what we say. Government members have just admitted that. I am glad that that interesting admission will be in Hansard. Limiting speaking times will not achieve the efficiency gains that the Coalition Government thinks it will. When there is a 20-minute time limit, instead of having five-minute speeches or 10-minute speeches, every speech will be 20 minutes long.
During every session of Parliament, members deal with hundreds of bills. As a result of the Government's intention to impose 20-minute time limits, debate on each bill will involve many speeches of 20-minutes duration. Imposing time limits does not improve efficiency. Perhaps if a time limit of one and a half hours were imposed efficiency might be improved because most members would not speak for an hour and a half on most legislation. But the Government should watch what happens: The Government should count the number of 20-minute speeches compared to the number of five-minute speeches.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile makes a number of five-minute speeches, I make a fair number of 10-minute speeches and other members of this Chamber make five-minute, 10-minute or 15-minute speeches, 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3385
but all of those will expand to become 20-minute speeches. The efficiency of this Chamber will decline. By imposing time limits, the Government will eliminate two-hour, three-hour or six-hour speeches, but they do not occur very often. Each member of the Government should think about how often very long speeches have been made in this Chamber. How many members make very long speeches and how often does that happen? It happens very rarely, yet we will become the 20-minute Chamber. Each bill will involve a series of 20-minute speeches and that will slow down the passage of legislation.
The third reason that the proposed change to sessional orders is incredibly bad is because it oppresses minorities. This Chamber offers the right of free speech. That sometimes means that members speak for a long time, but sometimes we do not. Of course, every right is accompanied by an obligation to use the right sensibly. The Government feels that Mr David Shoebridge and I did not use our right to speak sensibly during debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011. That is the Government's judgement, but it is our judgement that we exercised our right in a responsible manner. I do not speak at length on every piece of legislation I do not like.
There has been plenty of legislation that The Greens vehemently opposed, but we have not sought to make six-hour speeches in relation to it. We have not sought to speak to any extent beyond what was necessary for us to impart our analyses of legislation. However, exercising that right is a fundamental tenet of free speech, and the fundamental right of free speech is being taken away by the majority and imposed on the minority. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile appreciates what that means. In 1993 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, in an act of great personal courage, left Sydney Hospital in his pyjamas, dressing-gown and slippers to make a speech on a bill to outlaw and vilify homosexuality and homosexuals.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: With three broken ribs in my back.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I have had broken ribs and I know that broken ribs in one's back are very painful— even more painful than the pain I experienced. In an act of great courage, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile commenced his speech at approximately 1.00 a.m. and he vowed to speak for as long as he physically could. He exercised his right to speak. I vehemently disagree with his vote and his position on that bill. I think he is dead wrong.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We lost the motion.
Dr JOHN KAYE: He lost the vote, and I am glad he did.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: By one vote.
Dr JOHN KAYE: But I am also glad that he had the right to make a stand and say that he would speak as long as he was able in an effort to prevent the legislation from being passed. It did not work, but he did that because he felt morally compelled to do so.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It was the last day before the Christmas recess and Parliament might have adjourned if I had not kept speaking. People do not want to be here at Christmas.
Dr JOHN KAYE: That presupposes the level of commitment held by the leaders of the House to the celebration of Christmas. Nevertheless, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile had that right and exercised that right. His approach did not work, but he had the right to exercise that right. Although some supporters of The Greens may not agree with me, I think we are better for the fact that he was able to do that. However, as a result of the Government's proposed change, he will not be able to do that. No voice, irrespective of whether it is a voice of the majority or the minority, will have the capacity to express a view in a manner similar to the way in which Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile expressed his view in 1993. The Government's proposal will remove the capacity of members to actualise their deeply held moral commitments when dealing with legislation and manifest that commitment in examination of the legislation in great detail.
Speaking at length is a protest, but as the late Justice Lionel Murphy observed in the O'Neill case, everybody has the right to be an agitator. Every member of this Chamber has the right to speak and be heard for a long time as a protest. It is a protest that we do not often use. It is a protest that has to be used judiciously. Of course freedom of speech is always complex, but it is also always important. It is time for those members of the Government who genuinely are Liberals and who genuinely believe in the right of individuals to stand up for 3386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
freedoms and the right of free speech in this Chamber. I urge members who are not Liberals but are rather Conservatives—I think there are some members of the Government who genuinely are more Conservative than they are Liberal, and good for them—
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: And proud of it.
Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Charlie Lynn is proud of it. If nothing else, Conservatives stand up for tradition.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: What do The Greens stand up for?
Dr JOHN KAYE: Conservatives should stand up for traditions, and one of the 104-year traditions is the right of free speech. As was so often referred to by a former President of this Chamber, the Hon. Peter Primrose, free speech is that cherished right of each individual member of this Chamber. When a member is first elected to this Chamber, the first President one encounters influences that member, even though the President does not necessarily come from the same political party. The Presidents who have presided in this Chamber since I have been a member have largely been above partisan politics and they influenced members with their understanding of democracy and the manner in which the Chamber works. I took to heart the words of a former President, the Hon. Peter Primrose, who said there is a cherished right of free speech. I regard that as a profound statement of democracy in this Chamber. The Greens and I are convinced that this motion will remove the right of free speech.
I urge the smaller parties, the Shooters and Fishers Party, whose members are not present in the Chamber, and the Christian Democratic Party, to be careful not to impinge on their own rights. I accept that they did not support The Greens on the industrial relations legislation and that is their democratic right. I think they were badly wrong on that but that is my opinion and they have their opinion. However, I urge them not to be caught in the Coalition Government's payback against The Greens and Labor. I urge them not to be caught in a game of tit for tat in the rosy glow of their close relationship with the Government and feel that they can oppress the minority.
I say that because one day they will be in the minority and the position they adopt now will later be turned on them. When it is turned on them, they will know what it feels like to lose their right of free speech. I urge them to think very carefully about what is about to happen in this House—the destruction of a 104-year tradition that has protected members of parties such as The Greens, Labor, The Nationals, the Liberals and their predecessors for a very long time. This Chamber has given us the protection of the right to speak and the right to examine legislation in great detail.
The Greens strongly oppose the proposed legislation by the Government. It will oppress minorities and will not achieve an efficient Parliament. The Government's proposal will result in a less efficient Parliament and will reduce the ability of this Chamber to provide members with the capacity to scrutinise legislation. It will turn this Chamber into a rubber stamp. In conclusion, I will refer briefly to remarks made by two Coalition speakers. The first relates to remarks made by the Minister for Roads and Ports, who is the Deputy Leader of the Government. He cited the House of Lords as his primary source of inspiration for what the Government is proposing.
Mr David Shoebridge: He must have forgotten that it is not elected.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Exactly. The reality of the House of Lords, as Mr David Shoebridge reminds the Chamber by his detailed knowledge of British politics, is that its members are not elected.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Some are.
Dr JOHN KAYE: It is true that some members of the House of Lords are elected.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They are appointed by the Government.
Dr JOHN KAYE: The overwhelming majority of the voting members of the House of Lords are appointed by the Government, and perhaps even the debating members are as well. Members of the House of Lords are no longer hereditary appointments. However, it is an appalling misunderstanding of the mission of this House to compare it to the House of Lords. To compare a House that is by and large not elected and that has 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3387
limited capacity to reject legislation to this Chamber—especially when the lower House to which the House of Lords provides accountability is more than five times the size of our lower House—is an appalling misrepresentation of reality. The speech of the Hon. Trevor Khan is totally and completely irrelevant.
The Gettysburg Address was 230 words long. Winston Churchill could express great ideas in 45 characters. Indeed, Twitter limits people to 144 characters. Perhaps we should become the first Twitter Parliament where members are restricted to 144 characters in every speech, but that will not provide accountability. Accountability is not simply a few pithy words; it cannot be achieved with nice little statements or a couple of homilies. Accountability is much more. It is about a detailed examination and understanding of the implications. It might not be poetic or as memorable as Mr Trevor Khan sees those other speeches, but accountability is an important function of democracy that will be lost. Yes, the pretty little speeches will be remembered, but the accountability of this Chamber will be forgotten. I urge members to vote against this change to our sessional orders.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.21 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendments to the sessional orders. They can be reviewed in the future. I believe the extreme abuse of the procedures of this House during debate on the industrial relations bill has forced these changes on us.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I believe we should adopt the same process as the Senate. I am sure the nine senators from The Greens would argue that the Senate is ineffective because it has time limitations on speeches. As members know, I have a bill on the Notice Paper that suggests this Chamber should be called the New South Wales Senate. I see these changes as part of updating and modernising this Chamber. I support the Government's motion to amend the sessional orders.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.22 p.m.]: Mr Speaker, one of my concerns is—
[Interruption]
I apologise, Mr President. I am getting used to this place being slowly turned into the Legislative Assembly by those opposite.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Or is it because you were a member of the Legislative Assembly and you lost your seat?
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: As the Minister for Roads and Ports points out, I was formerly a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly has its own unique history, qualities and way of doing things. The Legislative Council has a proud history and its own traditions, which is what we are debating today. I have been a member of both Houses. Today I am a member of the Legislative Council, something that he and his colleagues have forgotten. Mr President, thank you for reminding me. I do not know whether that is on the hit-list for later, but we will see. The fundamental argument in this debate is that because we have such a despotic and unmanageable Chamber at the moment we need to make a dramatic change to sessional orders to overrule the traditions of this House.
Fundamentally, the Minister for Roads and Ports is stating that, unlike a succession of members dating back nearly 200 years, the Government cannot manage the business of this House within the current standing orders. If that is an admission by the Government, it does not say something about the standing orders but about the Government. It is distressing that the fundamental argument made by the Leader of the House is that he cannot manage the House within the current standing orders without overturning nearly 200 years of tradition.
The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Amanda Fazio and others in this House have made a number of points that I will not reiterate. Numerous references have been made to tradition, to the House of Lords, to the great emancipist President Lincoln and to the Gettysburg Address. The Battle of Gettysburg is well known not only for being one of the final major battles of the Civil War but also within political circles for what is known as Pickett's Charge, when Lee ordered Pickett to charge union lines. Despite all the best advice and the traditions of military history, Pickett led his men to an absolute disaster.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: A slaughter. 3388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: To an absolute slaughter. People may recall the Hon. Duncan Gay for that in the future. The Hon. Duncan "Pickett" Gay is leading this Chamber. He is seeking to overturn the traditions and history of this place and to turn it into the Legislative Assembly.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is offensive.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: It may be offensive, but I find what he and his colleagues are doing to the sessional orders of this Chamber equally offensive to the traditions of the Legislative Council. Let history decide on what the Hon. Duncan Gay is doing. With all the sincerity that I can muster, I genuinely believe that the traditions of this place are worth protecting. He, in his short time as Leader of the House, has trashed a number of those traditions and is again seeking to do so. The Minister for Roads and Ports quoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt to justify his position.
I want to look at what only three members of the House have said in relation to some of the traditions in this House, particularly this important matter. On 16 April 1997 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile opposed a motion in relation to time limits on speeches that had been moved in this place. He said, "No matter how it is dressed up, when a similar motion was previously debated quite clearly by very experienced and longstanding members of this House it was a gag motion." That was correct. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile also quoted a speech by the Hon. E. P. Pickering on 13 October 1987 in relation to this matter. He said:
In fairness to the Government, it has not used the gag during the 11 years I have been a member of this House. That is part of a continuing proud tradition that goes back for about ninety-six years. I wonder whether one day even that might be finally broken. The other proud tradition has been the unfettered right of a member to express a point of view, provided he is within the forms of the House, speaks to the bill, and does not repeat himself over and over again.
I have a great respect for Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile but it is worthwhile noting his comments on 16 April 1997 on this matter. He said:
As any change to the standing or sessional orders is a serious matter, a degree of caution should be exercised when dealing with it and it should be referred for discussion and consensus to the Standing Orders Committee or other special committee with an all-party representation.
When such a motion is moved in this House it should be unanimously agreed to. All members should be happy with any suggestion for change.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You could still achieve that consensus.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: In addition to consensus, I will refer Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to some of the other learned things he said at that time. He said:
The Government is not genuine. The only question that is being asked is: how can the Government … control the upper House?
It cannot be argued that this motion will modernise this House. There is no connection between gagging debate in this House and modernising it.
An argument in favour of the motion is that acceptance of what it seeks will save time. I go on record as saying that, if this motion is passed, time will not be saved. A situation similar to that prevailing in the other House will prevail here. When I have listened to debate in the other House—which is quite frequently—I have noticed that most members use their full allocation of time. It seems that most are interrupted by Mr Speaker, who says, "The member's time has expired." … That mentality would prevail in this House. If members did not use up their time, other members would interject and say, "Is that all you have to say? Don't you have any more to say on that matter?" Members not using their full allocation of time would have a negative effect.
If this motion is agreed to, all members will be watching the clock as they do in the adjournment debate. The effectiveness of members of this House might even be reduced. They may be so busy watching the time that they do not present their arguments as clearly as they might otherwise.
I do not believe that the flexible arrangements for debate that exist at the moment can be said to be an abuse of the Parliament.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.
Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [6.30 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn. 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3389
CENTRE FOR EFFECTIVE READING
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.30 p.m.]: I speak on a matter of importance to many parents in regional New South Wales, and particularly those parents whose children struggle at school with a reading difficulty. It is most appropriate that I am making this speech during Education Week. Many members will remember that in the dying days of the previous Government a decision was made to close the Dalwood Assessment Centre—a decision that outraged many parents across regional New South Wales. In an attempt to placate those parents, a so-called process of consultation was implemented involving meetings with parents at several regional centres across New South Wales. I attended one of those meetings in Tamworth.
What I saw there were parents in great distress. Grown men were crying as they spoke of the difficulties facing their children. Of course, they were not simply speaking about the difficulties their children had with reading. What was profoundly upsetting for the parents was the feeling of social isolation and humiliation felt by their children in their school environment. The fact that the decision was made by the former Government without proper consultation with parents before the announcement was cruel and heartless and was a reflection of how it had lost its way.
In contradistinction to the actions of the former Government, I want to place on the record how the O'Farrell Government has responded. The then shadow Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, is now the Minister. He saw the need to respond to the parents' concerns and called for the development of a policy that would address those concerns. In June this year I attended the opening of the New South Wales Centre for Effective Reading at Manly. I will share with members the important role that such a facility plays.
Children from regional and remote New South Wales will again be able to take time out from their normal schooling to attend a residential program of up to four weeks duration. After a one-week orientation, during which the students meet the teachers and other students, they receive up to three weeks of intensive reading instruction. Parents are able to stay with their children while they are at the centre and participate in the reading program. Parents are able to work with the specialist staff to better understand and manage their child's long-term reading challenges. Many of the children are issued with laptops that contain special reading software. The children can take them home and continue to use the games and other interactive programs to develop their reading skills further. After their stay, students and their schools receive up to two terms of ongoing support from the centre, which also monitors their progress for a minimum of 12 months. This means that when these students return to school they do not revert to the reading level they had before they attended the centre. Their teachers are in a better position to help because they are provided with resources and support from the centre to do so.
I must specifically acknowledge a number of people. First, I thank the board and staff of Royal Far West at Manly. I single out Jan Kingston for her courtesy and insight, which was most important in helping with the development of the policy. Additionally, I acknowledge the work of one of Minister Piccoli's now policy advisers, Josh Hatten. He did some extraordinary work with the limited resources available in opposition to assist in drafting the proposal which has, with some amendments, resulted in the establishment of the Centre for Effective Reading. Just as important as the accuracy and detail of his policy work was the empathy with which he dealt with the many parents and experts who helped in the formulation of the policy.
Finally I thank two parents, Angela Brown and Michelle Bolte. Their passion and persistence in seeing an effective residential program reinstated was extraordinary. I and many other members of the New South Wales Nationals were humbled by their passion and commitment to the cause. They are to be congratulated on the way in which they supported so many parents and, through the parents, so many children who suffer with reading difficulties.
SREBRENICA MASSACRE ANNIVERSARY
The Hon. WALT SECORD [6.35 p.m.]: On 10 July I had the privilege of participating in my first function as a member of Parliament. It was a modest event held in Parramatta on a cold winter Sunday evening. However, it was a solemn and deeply moving occasion. The participants recited poetry and displayed their art; their children sang in their native language; their imam led them in soft prayer; and they commemorated their loved ones to a mournful violin. Together they proclaimed "Never again." I joined Sydney's small Bosnian Muslim community to mark the sixteenth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre—an inexplicable evil perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia. Between 1992 and 1995, the war in Bosnia saw more than 100,000 people die and a further 1.3 million displaced. These events put the horrific term "ethnic cleansing" into the world's everyday vocabulary. 3390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
Over five days in early July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered under the command of Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic. They separated the men and boys from the women, children and the elderly and with boundless hate they murdered them for a simple reason—they were Muslim. In 2001 the Srebrenica massacre was determined by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to have been a crime of genocide. In 1995, Mladic was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Earlier this year he was arrested and extradited to The Hague.
The past 100 years have been stained with genocide—the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda. Genocide did not begin or end with Adolf Hitler. Today, Srebrenica stands as the site of the worst case of genocide in Europe since the Second World War. Remarkably, there are people who deny that the massacre occurred at Srebrenica and there is still much local debate about it. That is offensive and criminal. That is why the indictment of Mladic is so important. Anyone who commits genocide and crimes against humanity must be held to account no matter where or when it occurred. At the same time as we gathered in Parramatta, 40,000 people gathered in Bosnia to remember Srebrenica. Families in Bosnia prayed over the graves of their loved ones.
A special service was held at the vast cemetery and memorial centre at Potocari, where more than 4,000 victims are buried. Sixteen years later, authorities are still identifying remains. Last month, 613 victims were identified through painstaking DNA and were given proper burials. Survivors and volunteers hoisted the coffins draped in green cloth into the air and carried them to a field of freshly dug graves in a nearby valley. The youngest laid to rest was just 11 years old and the oldest 82. From 1992 to 1995 Australia accepted more than 23,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia, and many of them live in New South Wales. Among those at Parramatta were those who had personally lost family at Srebrenica, but that Sunday evening they left the speaking to others. They were silent.
Federal Labor member for Chifley, Ed Husic, and the Bosnia-Herzegovina ambassador, Dr Damir Arnaut, spoke for them. Although Mrs Elma Husic, the woman behind the Bosnian Ethnic School, shares the same surname as Ed Husic, they are not related, but they both share the spirit of tolerance. Elma Husic says her fledgling school has very simple and pure aims: students must be moral and humane and differentiate only between justice and injustice. It was an honour to attend the commemoration and to add my voice to "Never forget Srebrenica" and "Never again".
NORWAY KILLINGS
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.40 p.m.]: I speak on the very serious subject of the mass murderer in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, and reject any assertion that he is a fundamentalist Christian. The term "fundamentalist Christian" has been widely used, but I put on record the strong condemnation by the Christian Democratic Party of his actions, which cannot be justified. We reject all his activities, his philosophy and his beliefs. Sadly, the major newspapers in this city have labelled him a fundamentalist Christian. On 24 July, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald was headed, "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian'". Another article in the Sydney Morning Herald was headed, "Police begin questioning of Christian fundamentalist". The SBS headline read, "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian'" and even the Australian, which I respect, referred to "Norwegian fundamentalist Christian".
It is a pity that before those statements were made more investigations were not conducted about this man and his beliefs. He is an absolute contradiction and he is obviously confused about the things in which he believes. In his own manifesto, which apparently is available on the web, he describes himself as 100 per cent Christian. However, he goes on to define that and says he is not excessively religious; he is a "cultural Christian". I have never heard of a cultural Christian but that is what he says he is. His manifesto states:
I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie.
He goes on to repeat that he is a cultural Christian and I believe he has taken that label so that in his mind he is on that side versus Islam. He goes on to state:
It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy ...
He uses the term "Christian" but not in the normal way in which we use it: a person who is a follower of Jesus Christ. We know that Jesus Christ was emphatic in condemning murder. He said that we shall not murder and that if we do we will face the judgement of God. There was no compromise by Jesus Christ and neither should there be by any of his followers to engage in such acts as this man in Norway did. Breivik goes on to state:
Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God.
2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3391
In other words, he has no personal faith in Jesus Christ. It is a great pity that various media have loosely described him as a fundamentalist Christian so that they can point the finger at Christians around the world, whether in Australia, the United Kingdom or America, saying that Christian terrorists are just as bad as Islamic terrorists. This man is not a Christian fundamentalist terrorist. At best, he is a Christian atheist or a cultural Christian who adopts the coat of the Norwegian culture, which is basically Christian, and he wants to defend that. He has no personal relationship through prayer and faith with the Lord Jesus Christ or Almighty God. I note that in his diary he said that before he carried out these murders he would have sex with three whores, that is, three prostitutes. In no way can this man be regarded as a Christian. He is not a Christian fundamentalist. He is a very misguided, confused and crazy murderer.
GLOBAL WARMING
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [6.45 p.m.]: It is time to fire up the Quattro. Once again I enter the lists over the great global warming swindle and express deep concern about a violent pathology that is being expressed by Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] alarmists. I have already spoken in this place of the totalitarian strain in the taxpayer-funded Anthropogenic Global Warming scientific community. We have heard how some of its number is deeply critical of democracy and have even called for its suspension. But it is not just the scientists themselves. Listen to this piece from global warming propagandist Richard Glover:
Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest ...
On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.
One must have a very high threshold for "Nazi-creepy" to describe that proposal as being only a bit Nazi-creepy. Of course, the backsliding and revisionism began almost immediately. The following is what Glover wrote a week later. He claimed to have said:
... that climate-change deniers should tattoo their beliefs on their bodies so they couldn't later deny their role in preventing action on climate change.
That is a complete and utter lie. A week earlier he said that they should have their opinions "forcibly tattooed on their bodies", which is not tattooing it on themselves. That sort of hate speech from the Anthropogenic Global Warming propagandists continues apace and, sadly, it is not just limited to the hate media of Fairfax and the ABC, of which Richard Glover is a part. In the Herald Sun on 22 June 2011, left-wing columnist Jill Singer had this to say:
I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics—put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas—say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn't see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
"Suspending democracy", "tattoos on the arms" and "poisoning by carbon monoxide" are the words spoken by the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists. Let us think about this. Can anyone think of any historical analogies that might replicate these demands other than the one to which Mr Glover himself alluded? Contrast these sorts of extremist violent statements with the sorts of reasoned, measured and—dare I say it—scientific analyses offered by people like Ian Plimer, David Evans, Jo Nova and Václav Klaus, all of whom I had the pleasure of meeting over the winter break. They were not calling for people to be killed and they were not spouting violence and hate. Even the colourful Viscount of Brenchley spoke more in sorrow than in anger about the global warming swindlers who infest leftist government bureaucracies and the shallower ponds of academia.
Members of the left-wing hate media should take a long hard look at themselves. The violence of their extreme views fills me with great concern about where this debate is heading over scientific facts. It is time for the left-wing hate media to be held to account. These people are like bullies. When they cannot win the arguments on their merits, they threaten violence. These people are the schoolyard bullies of debate. When they cannot win the debate they threaten violence. That is something that Anthropogenic Global Warming opponents never do. It is time for the left-wing hate media to be held to account. I look forward to Senator Bob Brown's call for such organs as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the ABC to be held to account for the views that their commentators espouse. It is time to return to rationality and civility in this debate. 3392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2 August 2011
NATIONAL HOMELESS PERSONS WEEK
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.50 p.m.]: I draw members' attention to National Homeless Persons Week, which takes place this week from 1 to 7 August 2011. Homelessness results in social and economic costs to individuals, families, communities and our nation. Homelessness forces people away from their families, friends and communities. The right to safe and adequate housing is not just an integral part of our social fabric. It is enshrined in several international human rights instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and, more specifically, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of which article 11 states that "every person has the right to adequate housing". Adequate housing can include factors such as legal security of tenure, availability of services and facilities, affordability, accessibility and adequacy. Despite this, many people in our communities remain homeless.
On the occasion of the last census in 2006 almost 105,000 people across the nation were found to be considered homeless. Of these about one quarter, or 27,000 persons, were from New South Wales and of those nearly 4,000 persons were sleeping rough. While rough sleepersare the most obvious example of homelessness, they are not the largest group of homeless persons in our community. For example, 44 per cent of homeless persons are temporarily staying with relatives and friends. A further 20 per cent are living in boarding houses and other temporary and substandard forms of accommodation, 18 per cent are rough sleepers and a further 18 per cent find a bed in a government or non-government homeless service.
Every day nearly one in every 200 Australians is homeless. One in every 154 Australians sought help from a homeless assistance service and one in every 39 children aged under four slept in a homeless service provision. Further, 23 per cent of Australia's children are homeless. Almost one in four homeless people is under 18. Of every 42 Australian children under the age of four one has experienced homelessness to some degree. Every day half the people who request immediate accommodation from a homeless service are turned away. Two in every three children who need support are also turned away, as are almost 80 per cent of families.
Family homelessness is not visible or widely recognised in Australia. Many people in our community find it difficult to believe such a phenomenon exists in such an affluent country as Australia. In fact, families are one of the fastest growing groups experiencing homelessness. Statistics indicate that the number of homeless families in Australia is growing. Between the 2001 and 2006 censuses their number jumped by almost 17 per cent. On census night 2006 the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded nearly 27,000 families without a home to call their own. Children in homeless families are the largest single group who need the support of homeless services across the country. Nearly 8,000 families with children seek the support of these services. Nearly 12,000 people are children under the age of 12. Another 21 per cent, or 22,000 people, are children and young people aged between 12 and 18.
Children who are homeless have higher rates of asthma, ear infections, vision problems, eczema and developmental delays. They are often reliant on hospital emergency departments and outpatients clinics for health care and have lower immunisation rates. They spend less time in school than other children. They may move schools up to five times a year and are more likely to leave school altogether. They often experience lower levels of safety and security and they have lower self-esteem, increased anxiety, behavioural issues and a greater incidence of mental illness. They are more likely to become homeless later in life and raise families who also become homeless.
The single major cause of homelessness in Australia is domestic violence. According to Homelessness Australia one in every two women with children in a homeless service is escaping domestic violence. Further, 22 per cent of all people seeking help from assistance services say their homelessness is caused by domestic violence. Other reasons include poverty, unemployment and a critical shortage of affordable housing. Family breakdowns, mental illness, sexual assault, addiction, financial difficulty and gambling also have been identified as factors in many of the situations.
Australia's indigenous people are well and truly over-represented. While they are 2.4 per cent of the population, they represent 10 per cent of the homeless population. That is a continuing blight on our collective community. The community as a whole needs to think of ever more ingenious ways to address this increasing and complex problem because there is no one set of solutions. It is a task that lies before us all.
CARBON PRICING
Dr JOHN KAYE [6.55 p.m.]: At last, Australia is inexorably on the path to a price on carbon. Four long years of debate has finally ended. Despite the increasing vitriol and personal attacks mounted on the 2 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3393
supporters of carbon pricing, Labor and The Greens in Canberra have reached an agreement. During the four long years of debate the climate deniers have profited from their allies in the Federal Coalition and have been able to lay inflated claims at the feet of the people of New South Wales and Australia. The scaremongering and misguided fear that has been created by people such as the Federal Leader of the Opposition has done irreparable harm to the people of New South Wales. The Federal Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, said that the carbon price would turn Whyalla into a ghost town. He said:
Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town, an economic wasteland, if this tax goes ahead … It's absolutely certain that jobs will be lost if the carbon tax goes ahead.
Weeks later, in May, OneSteel approved a $65 million upgrade of its Whyalla blast furnace. Today a report by MSCI, a corporate steel research firm, concluded that two of Australia's biggest steelmakers, OneSteel and BlueScope, will be better off under the carbon plan. OneSteel will see a 2.1 per cent improvement in its earnings and BlueScope a 2.4 per cent improvement. This typifies the alarmist nonsense that has been coming out of the Federal Coalition, despite the heavy degree of compensation for the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries—it is arguable whether or not that is sensible–and the $300 million fund that has been given to the steel industry.
I praise much of the arrangements that have been reached between The Greens and Labor in Canberra. They include protection for lower and middle income households, all of whom will see an increase in their average disposable income. The average household will receive a $10.10 cut in taxes or an increase in payments and a $9.90 increase in their total costs. The consumer price index [CPI] will be driven up by 0.7 per cent. Given the random fluctuations that occur in the consumer price index that is not a great impact. The plan rules out burning native forestry waste for renewable power. That is a great step forward for the people of the south-east of the State. The targets in the Emissions Trading Scheme, which will kick in after three years' fixed pricing, will be set on a five-year basis, not a 15-year basis as previously stated. This will allow targets to be adjusted according to the science as it evolves. Further, $13.2 billion is to be provided for clean energy, which will see a start on the transition to a low carbon future. Of course, the price itself corrects the market anomaly of allowing large polluters to use the atmosphere's services for free. The plan also provides cash for the renewable energy industry.
My Federal colleagues, particularly Senator Brown, Senator Milne and Mr Adam Bandt, have made a remarkable achievement, given that the starting point was the Australian Labor Party's original Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme, the CPRS. The price on carbon is an important step forward. It disadvantages polluting activities in favour of less polluting activities and it provides a cash flow. Some people have argued it sends an economic signal to consumers. I reject that argument because consumers already are seeing massive price rises in electricity.
Those who have argued that the carbon price will cause the price to fall in are completely wrong. Over its first three years the carbon price will collect about $21 billion in revenue. For new wires, poles and substations in the electricity industry around Australia the same consumers will be paying about $42 billion. Defence expenditure, which is paid for out of our income tax, will spend about $85 billion and the goods and services tax—truly the great big tax on everything if one is looking for one—will require consumers to pay in the order of $130 billion. The carbon tax will have a very small impact on household budget compared with the wires and poles expenditure, the expenditure on Defence or the goods and services tax. That is not to talk about the importance of those expenditures but to put the carbon tax into perspective. [Time expired.]
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.00 p.m. until Wednesday 3 August 2011 at 11.00 a.m.
______