12789
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 14 June 2012
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business items Nos 599, 606 and 720 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
FAIRFAX MEDIA RESTRUCTURE
Dr JOHN KAYE [9.33 a.m.]: I move:
1. That this House notes with concern:
(a) the proposal by Fairfax management to restructure operations at the Illawarra Mercury and Newcastle Herald and outsource a total of 66 local jobs in editorial production to New Zealand, and
(b) the impacts that this proposal would have on news and current affairs reporting in New South Wales' second and third largest cities and the consequent impacts on the quality public debate across the state.
2. That this House calls on Fairfax management to abandon these changes.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
Division called for.
Call for a division, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
SYDNEY HOMELESS CONNECT
Motion by the Hon. GREG DONNELLY agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) on Tuesday 5 June 2012, Sydney Homeless Connect was held at Sydney's Town Hall, and
(b) this was the third year that the annual event has been held, providing free services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness.
2. That this House notes that:
(a) the event was supported by more than 100 donor organisations and specialist homeless services,
(b) the event once again offered everything from ear checks and podiatry to haircuts, flu jabs and a hearty meal, to help with paperwork, applying for a job or getting advice on health issues and legal questions, and
(c) Sydney Homeless Connect is a 100 per cent not-for-profit organisation, all services are donated freely and no-one associated with staging Sydney Homeless Connect receives any payment for the services provided.
3. That this House expresses its thanks and appreciation to both founder Andrew Everingham and Peter Durie, directors of Sydney Homeless Connect, and all support organisations and personnel who participated on the day, as their efforts on behalf of the homeless in New South Wales is a wonderful example to all.
12790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5
Authority to Make Visits of Inspection
Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:
That, for the purpose of its current inquiry into the management of public land in New South Wales, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 have power, with the approval of the President, to make visits of inspection in Victoria.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 19 June 2012 at 2.30 p.m.
SESSIONAL ORDERS
Days and Hours of Sitting
Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:
That the sessional order for the interruption to permit a motion for the adjournment to be moved be amended by omitting "6.30 p.m. on Tuesday" and inserting instead "7.00 p.m. on Tuesday".
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [9.48 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 752 outside the Order of Precedence relating to a Select Committee on the Defence of Provocation be called on forthwith.
This matter is urgent because, as members are aware, a judgement in a case that was widely reported last week has caused a great deal of concern in the community. I am sure members have received representations from the community about this matter, and particularly from those advocating on behalf of victims of domestic violence. The judgement has raised concerns about this State's law as it relates to the defence of provocation. Its use in cases involving murder and domestic violence is of particular concern. This matter is urgent because it is our responsibility as legislators to review the laws of this State when our community calls upon us to do so. I believe that members are of a mind to support this motion so I will not take up any more time of the House.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Helen Westwood agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 752 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
Establishment
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [9.49 a.m.]: I seek leave of the House to amend Private Members' Business item No. 752 outside the Order of Precedence by deleting paragraphs 3 and 4 and inserting instead:
3. That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the committee consist of seven members as follows:
(a) three Government members.
(b) two Opposition members who will be Mr Searle and Ms Westwood, and
(c) two Cross Bench members who will be Revd Mr Nile and Mr Shoebridge.
4. That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the Chair of the committee will be Revd Mr Nile and the Deputy Chair will be elected at the first meeting of the committee.
Leave granted. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12791
Accordingly, I move:
1. That this House notes ongoing concerns regarding the use of provocation as a partial defence to a charge of murder.
2. That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) the retention of the partial defence of provocation including:
(i) abolishing the defence,
(ii) amending the elements of the defence in light of proposals in other jurisdictions,
(b) the adequacy of the defence of self-defence for victims of prolonged domestic and sexual violence, and
(c) any other related matters.
3. That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the committee consist of seven members as follows:
(a) three Government members.
(b) two Opposition members who will be Mr Searle and Ms Westwood, and
(c) two Cross Bench members who will be Revd Mr Nile and Mr Shoebridge.
4. That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the Chair of the committee will be Revd Mr Nile and the Deputy Chair will be elected at the first meeting of the committee.
5. That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, at any meeting of the committee four members will constitute a quorum.
6. That a committee member who is unable to attend a deliberative meeting in person may participate by electronic communication and may move any motion and be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division, provided that:
(a) the Chair is present in the meeting room,
(b) all members are able to speak and hear each other at all times, and
(c) a member may not participate by electronic communication in a meeting to consider a draft report.
7. That the committee report by 21 November 2012.
This is a very serious social issue and one I believe about which many members have great concerns. This House has a history of reviewing our laws where they are out of step with the community's expectations. In the case last week in which a man was sentenced to six years for the murder of his wife when, in anger, he lost control and slit that woman's throat a number of times with a box cutter, the sentence was absolutely out of step with what our community expects. It appears to me outrageous that people can claim they were so enraged or angered by emotions of jealousy that they can take a box cutter to their wife's throat and then under our laws be sentenced to six years imprisonment. Understandably, I think—absolutely justifiably—the family of this woman is outraged and disgusted, and has said so. As legislators it is our responsibility to review these laws, take evidence from experts and particularly from victims and victims' families who have been so hurt by judgements such as this. To be fair to the courts, they have to make judgements that are in keeping with the laws that we as legislators have given them. This case highlights to me why these laws must be reviewed.
Some argue that this matter should be referred to the Law Reform Commission but the issue has been before the Law Reform Commission. This can involve many months, sometimes years, and as a result of the work of the Law Reform Commission there has been no review of or change to these laws to reflect what our community now expects. I have received representations from advocates for victims of domestic violence. They are calling on us as legislators to review these laws. There is enough evidence out there. Many are willing to provide evidence to a select committee. I hope that the committee's recommendations to the House are acted upon and result in a change to the laws so that they reflect the views of the community.
I urge members of the House to support this motion. I know there is a view that way, and I thank members for their support for this motion. I will not take up too much time of the House. The proposed reporting date for the select committee is the end of November. We will be able to take a great deal of data and submissions and come back to the House with a report that recommends reforms to our laws that are in keeping with our community's expectation. I urge members of the House to support the motion. 12792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.54 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Helen Westwood. As she stated, there is great concern amongst women in the community about this case and the low sentence for a person who carried out such a brutal, calculated murder of his wife. There is no way we can assess his claim that he was provoked. Even if he were provoked, how could it justify such a murder? It is important that a committee conduct an investigation, hear from members of the community and then report its recommendations to the House. The Government can then consider them with a view to amending the legislation. I support the motion.
Dr JOHN KAYE [9.55 a.m.]: The Greens support the motion. It is unusual to hear The Greens supporting a move that could lead to stronger penalties but in this case it is clear that an injustice has been perpetrated. There is deep concern in the community about the way this particular provision in the law is being used. I understand that we are the last State in Australia to maintain the defence of provocation at this level. Therefore we support the establishment of the inquiry.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [9.56 a.m.]: I support the motion. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Helen Westwood for their agreement that the Government members who will be on this committee will be decided by the Government. That is clearly an indication of the spirit of cooperation that has been shown. This has been an issue for some time. The matter was dealt with in 1997 in the Law Reform Commission report. Removal of the defence of provocation was rejected by the commission at that stage. The defence goes back many centuries in the common law. In truth, it can be said to have arisen because murder was a capital crime: it was a crime that carried the death penalty. The courts, quite rightly, showing some degree of sympathy for the accused, developed the partial defence of provocation so that some people convicted were not hanged. In a sense, that is a good outcome.
With the development of the law over the years no longer is murder a capital crime. It is no longer a crime that carries a fixed sentence of life. Therefore the underlying rationale for the defence of provocation disappears. We know that provocation is not a defence in the same way as self-defence. If provocation is successful or the prosecution is unable to disprove it, it leads to a reduction in the charge from murder to manslaughter. We have to be careful when we look at the case that brings this matter before us to fix our minds not on the sentence that was imposed on the prisoner Chamanjot Singh but, in a sense, on the law that led to the jury making a decision to acquit him of murder but find him guilty of manslaughter. That is the real test. This is not an attack on Justice McClellan for the sentence he handed down. It should not be. It should involve a consideration of the law that applies in these matters.
It is worthwhile looking at a couple of cases or the facts and circumstances that give rise to matters such as this. I spoke only a couple of weeks ago about the killing of Julie Ramage in 2004 in Victoria which was part of the impetus for a change of law in Victoria. Dr John Kaye referred to New South Wales being the only State where the defence of provocation regarding murder remains, but my understanding is that currently Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia have removed that defence. So we are not the only State as Queensland is still in the slot.
[Interruption]
They certainly have not applied, as it remains part of State law. In the case of Julie Ramage, she had separated from her husband and had undergone a period of marriage counselling with her husband. Indeed, it seems that one issue raised at the trial was that she had attempted to let her husband down gently that the marriage was over. However, he maintained a false belief that he was able to reconstruct the marriage. Mrs Ramage went to the home to look at some renovations which, one anticipates, were being done in preparation for the sale of the home. After spending some 15 minutes there with her husband she told him in clear and certain terms that she had moved on, she had found somebody else and that the marriage was entirely over. He flew into an absolute rage, which led to his beating and strangling Mrs Ramage.
One has difficulty understanding how the jury came to its conclusion in that case when, having killed Julie Ramage, Mr Ramage then drove with her body a considerable distance out of Melbourne and buried her, returned to Melbourne, had dinner with their son and then met some lawyers before heading off to the police station. The jury accepted provocation as a defence in that circumstance—quite bizarre, one might think. The difficulty was that whilst evidence was allowed of what he said she had told him about having found another lover, the prior history of assaults, his controlling behaviour and the like was not. That one-sided presentation of events caused the outcome. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12793
The facts in the Chamanjot Singh case were similar. Manpreet Kaur, Mr Singh's wife, had complained for some time of being assaulted, and clearly the marriage had problems. It was not a happy relationship. The facts on the day of the killing are appalling. Mr Singh took a box knife and cut his wife's throat eight times. She had 22 wounds, including defensive wounds. The jury was told that, having inflicted those wounds upon her, Mr Singh regrettably left her still alive and bleeding to death on the floor of their home and caught a bus to Melbourne, where he was arrested on arrival. I anticipate we will find that the evidence of his fleeing the scene is unlikely to have gone before the jury. If it was, his conviction only of manslaughter is even more remarkable. Those sorts of circumstances occur time and again. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I spoke recently about a case from many years ago involving a man who was murdered on a beach in a different set of circumstances. His injuries were so horrific that his intestines were removed—the suggestion was that some form of advance had been made by another gentleman.
It seems incredible that such circumstances could allow someone to find an excuse under the law for murder, but apparently legal interpretation and the way in which juries are instructed can produce these quite bizarre results. I make two final points. The first is that because a judge is entitled to take all facts into account on sentencing, if a person such as Chamanjot Singh or Mr Ramage were convicted of murder they would still be entitled, upon sentencing, to put various exculpatory matters before a jury that might affect their sentence—for instance, the crime was one of passion and occurred without premeditation. Those matters are commonly taken into account in reducing the severity of a sentence. Subject to the select committee's finding with regard to what matters should appropriately go before a jury, a person who is convicted of a crime committed in the heat of passion should still be entitled to some form of reduction in their sentence for murder.
My second point is that considerable concern has been expressed in various quarters about the impact on women of removing the defence of provocation. The 2004 Victorian Law Reform Commission report indicates clearly that provocation is an unsuccessful defence for women; it is a defence that works almost exclusively for men. Men say that they acted in the heat of the moment when they were told something terrible about their relationship ending. However, women who have murdered their husband or partner can almost invariably maintain that they had been beaten or battered, or their children had been beaten and battered, for a period of years. That is not a case of provocation because juries find consistently that women were not acting in the heat of passion and were not out of control when they finally took the life of their husband or partner. They made, perhaps inappropriately, a deliberate decision that that was the only way out of an abusive relationship.
In such cases women may be entitled to rely on the defence of self-defence that would acquit them of murder. Certainly they may be entitled to rely on a partial defence of excessive defence, which would reduce the offence to manslaughter. It is appropriate that the select committee consider those weighty issues also. I thank members for their contributions to the debate, and particularly commend the Hon. Helen Westwood for moving the motion to allow these matters to be considered.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.07 a.m.]: Clearly this is a difficult and controversial area of the criminal law. As previous speakers have noted, it has been the subject of many reviews and examinations, most recently by the Law Reform Commission in 1997. However, the outcome of those deliberations is patently unsatisfactory and there remains continued community disquiet. As the Hon. Trevor Khan indicated, in some circumstances the law remains arguably too harsh when dealing with victims of prolonged domestic and sexual violence. Yet in other cases, perhaps in the Singh case and in other matters—the case of Mr Morgan from many years ago comes to mind—the outcome remains unsatisfactory because it enables people perhaps to escape their just punishment in some circumstances. Nevertheless, community disquiet remains. The subject is ripe for a relatively short and sharp examination by a select committee established by this House.
It is appropriate for us as parliamentarians to undertake that examination when perhaps other expert bodies have not yet been able to reach a lasting and satisfactory landing on changes to the law, or indeed even any unanimity about whether the law needs to be changed and in what way. It is particularly appropriate for a House of review, such as this upper House, to inquire into the matter. I join the Hon. Trevor Khan in thanking all members for their willingness to engage with this issue, hopefully in a non-partisan way, so that we can have a proper, thorough but not too leisurely examination of the matter and report back with some recommendations.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.09 a.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party will be supporting the motion. It is interesting to hear the contributions from members who are, or have been, in the law. This motion was moved by a member who is not a lawyer but a champion of people disadvantaged in one way or another. I salute the Hon. Helen Westwood. 12794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [10.10 a.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their willingness to support my motion and to support the establishment of this select committee. The committee will do great work in reviewing these laws and providing recommendations to the House. I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Trevor Khan. The Hon. Trevor Khan's eloquent addresses to the House are appreciated. As the Hon. Robert Brown said, the lawyers in the House are identifiable by their eloquent and often lengthy contributions. I thank the Government for its willingness to support the motion. This case has highlighted an inadequacy in the law. The law as it currently stands does not reflect the community's view or expectation that the criminal justice system will deliver justice for victims.
No-one is arguing that Manpreet Kaur received justice. Julie Ramage was murdered by her estranged husband. That court case led to law reform in Victoria. The women are never alive to defend themselves when allegations are made by the perpetrators of the crimes to justify murder. As legislators, it is our responsibility to speak on behalf of those who are not able to speak for themselves. The least that this Parliament can do for Manpreet Kaur and her family is to review the laws and to bring about changes that will give the community confidence that the law reflects community views. Law reform will ensure that husbands do not use the defence of provocation to justify the murder of women.
Other members have referred to self-defence as a consideration. That is what the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommended, and the law in Victoria now reflects that. A recent case in New South Wales involved a history of prolonged domestic violence. Self-defence was offered as a defence and it led to an outcome that most people believe was just. Many people have heard of Catherine Smith. The inquiry into domestic violence by the social issues committee has heard evidence from her. No-one can help but be moved by her case. Certainly the Hon. Niall Blair and I have listened to evidence that has been horrendous at times. It is unbelievable what some victims have endured. The community expects a review of laws that allow a perpetrator of murder in circumstances of domestic violence to claim that the victim provoked the attack. I thank members for their willingness to support the motion.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 63 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012 be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.15 a.m.]: I move:
That Private Members' Business item No. 63 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
Question put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 21
Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Mrs Mitchell Mr Blair Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Borsak Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12795
Noes, 17
Mr Buckingham Mr Moselmane Mr Shoebridge Ms Cotsis Mr Primrose Mr Veitch Mr Donnelly Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Ms Faehrmann Mr Searle Tellers, Mr Foley Mr Secord Ms Voltz Dr Kaye Ms Sharpe Ms Westwood
Pair
Mr Pearce Ms Fazio
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
GAME AND FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Robert Brown.
Second Reading
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.25 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Shooters and Fishers Party is pleased to introduce the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012—a bill that provides for a sensible, simple and practical conservation outcome. It is a conservation bill. A previous Premier was pragmatic enough to accept major parts of a similar bill, before reneging on his offer to allow conservation hunting in nearly 60 national parks. As I have said before, I have a marked-up map in my office showing within which parks that Premier was prepared to allow conservation hunting. The Premier following him took advice from the then member for Balmain and the member for Marrickville—both electorates that are hardly the bastions of feral animal plagues in our State. It seems what happened in the end was that it was easier to send Frank Sartor to the Hon. Ian Cohen and do a deal involving the declaration of river red gum forests as national parks—
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The member will be heard in silence.
Mr David Shoebridge: What is the Christian element in this? Why are the Christians voting for this?
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: —in return for Greens' preferences, thereby sinking the previous bill.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time.
Mr David Shoebridge: You're embarrassed.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no need for the member to be disrespectful to the Chair.
Mr David Shoebridge: Because you're embarrassed.
The Hon. Robert Borsak: That's outrageous.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I do, however, thank many former Labor members, in particular members of Country Labor, who understood the value of such a bill. As for the Coalition, when its members last saw this bill they were generally supportive but wanted to negotiate a couple of issues. In fact, we have gone so far as to address each of their concerns in this new, far simpler bill. 12796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: This is a very important bill, and I would think all members would want to hear the mover's justification for bringing it forward. I ask that members opposite be brought under control. They should remain silent and listen to the argument. They will have their chance to have their say on the bill next week.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The member raises a valid point. All members have the right to put their points forward during debate. I ask members to respect that right.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I am hopeful, therefore, that the Government will support the bill, unamended, through all stages in this House and in the other place. The threat of feral animals in our national parks is great, and even more so after recent floods when the population of feral cats, foxes, pigs, wild dogs and goats has exploded. But of course The Greens, all but one of whom live east of the Iron Cove Bridge, would not know that.
The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order: I almost do not need to take my point of order, given that it has become a complete free-for-all for those opposite and on the crossbenches. Members have the right to hear the member speaking. I cannot hear a word because of constant interjection. The Greens have had many opportunities to bring in private members' bills—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Many.
The Hon. John Ajaka: Many. And they have been heard in silence when they have introduced those bills. Other members should be afforded the same courtesy. I strongly suggest that members who cannot remain silent be asked to leave the Chamber.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.
Mr David Shoebridge: It is disorderly to do a grubby deal with the Government about national parks—and it is a grubby deal you are a part of.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the second time. Members will show the member with the call some respect and listen to him in silence. Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: The utilisation of volunteer conservation hunters, which has been working well in our State Forests since 2006, works particularly well in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia and overseas. A statutory five-year review of the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 was thorough and provided a detailed assessment of that Act. The review group agreed that game and feral animals cause impacts to public health and safety, private property, agriculture and the environment, and that establishing a council to facilitate, promote and manage hunting has reduced those impacts. Accordingly, it concluded that the policy objective remained valid. This bill addresses some of the recommendations for reform found in that statutory review.
The principal features of this amending bill are as follows. The bill will allow the Minister responsible for national park estate land to declare that land, under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act, for the purposes of hunting game animals by persons who hold a restricted game hunting licence. Furthermore, the bill makes a number of other amendments of an administrative, minor or consequential nature to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002, to the regulations, to the Firearms Act 1996 and to the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998.
The bill ensures that the intent of the legislation is consistent with the Game Council objectives, which are to provide for the effective management of introduced species of game animals and to promote the responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals and of certain pest animals on public and private land. The Game Council NSW is clearly the lead agency for the licensing and regulating of conservation hunting in New South Wales, with that system providing a range of genuine benefits for the people of the State, the economy and, importantly, the environment.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham to order for the first time. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12797
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: The Game Council NSW was established as a statutory authority by the New South Wales Parliament under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 and its associated Game and Feral Animal Control Regulation 2004. One of its major objectives is to harness the efforts of licensed and accredited hunters to help in the reduction of some of the nation's worst pests, such as pigs, goats, foxes and rabbits. Under the Game Council NSW we have seen the introduction of the game hunting licence system, the production at government level of the State's first hunter education handbook and the declaration of around 400 State forests and Crown land areas for pest control by volunteer conservation hunting licence holders.
There are an estimated 7.2 million foxes throughout Australia. They kill an estimated 190 million native birds annually and threaten the survival of many small Australian mammals. That is a fact that The Greens do not seem to understand or appreciate. According to the report "Counting the cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia, 2004", the cost impact nationally of 11 feral animal species alone totals $720 million per annum. More than 95 per cent of New South Wales is inhabited by some species of wild or feral animal which, if left unmanaged, may adversely affect the environment and damage agricultural production.
As at March 2012, the Game Council NSW had issued more than 17,000 game hunting licences, and that number is expected to reach 20,000 by the end of the year. Since 2004 approximately 2,600,000 game and feral animals have been removed from all lands—public and private—by those licensed game hunters alone in New South Wales. Last year Game Council licence holders removed nearly 800,000 game and feral animals on both private and public land, and are now on target to remove one million in one year. This, by any calculation, is a huge contribution to the management of feral animals in New South Wales and we should all congratulate the Game Council NSW on its conservation efforts. In addition, it is expected that game hunting licence holders will spend more than $100 million of their own money in pursuit of their volunteer hunting efforts, with most of that spending occurring in regional New South Wales. It is also important to note that the Game Council NSW is a statutory authority and that all funds raised by it go directly back into future council activities, and research and conservation projects.
Schedule 1 [4] and schedule 1 [5] amend the definition of "public land" so that it includes, rather than excludes, as is the case at present, national park estate land that includes national parks and other land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The effect of this amendment is that the Minister responsible for national park estate land may declare any such land as public hunting land under section 20 of the Act, as Ministers responsible for other public lands may declare the lands under their respective control. At the same time, the bill lists certain national park estate land that cannot be made available for volunteer conservation hunting of game and pest animals. Under the Act, hunting of game and pest animals on public land is permitted only if the land is declared to be available for hunting.
The amendments to schedule 1 [3] and [12] are consequential, and schedule 1 [2] inserts a definition of "declared public hunting land" for clarification purposes. Another aspect of the bill is the inclusion of other pest animals that may be hunted. Schedule 1 [6] recasts the provision of the Act and specifies the game animals that may be hunted in accordance with the Act so that the provision refers instead to a list set out in proposed schedule 3. The list of game animals contains two separate parts. For example, the game animals currently referred to in section 5 (2) of the Act will now be listed in parts 1 and 2 of new schedule 3. The list can be amended by ministerial order, but must specifically exclude native animals from being added by such an order.
Amendments to schedule 1 [2], [15] and [16] are consequential. Schedule 1 [7] provides for exemptions from certain offences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the regulations under that Act, insofar as those offences would otherwise relate to the lawful hunting by the holders of a game licence. It also provides that certain orders and notices under other legislation cannot prevent or interfere with hunting in accordance with a game hunting licence. Since the passing of the original Game and Feral Animal Control Bill 2002, hunters have demonstrated a thoroughly professional approach towards feral animal control and have also proven over the years the value of volunteer conservation hunting both on Crown lands and on private property. Despite any legislation in place, however, there will always be people who will not want to accept any form of hunting—such as Mr David Shoebridge and his friends in The Greens.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Hon. Robert Borsak and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham want to conduct a conversation they should do so outside the Chamber.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: For this reason, and for their safety and the safety of hunters, schedule 1 [24] extends the existing offence of obstructing, hindering or impeding an inspector to include assaulting, threatening or intimidating an inspector. Schedule 1 [25] creates a new offence of not complying with a direction by an inspector to leave or not to enter declared public hunting land. Such directions may be given to a 12798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
person if the inspector has reason to believe that the person is committing an offence under the Act. Schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55B prohibits commercial taxidermists from preserving or preparing the skin of certain game animals unless satisfied the animals have been hunted by a licensed game hunter or by a person with some other lawful authorisation—for example, under the existing National Parks and Wildlife Act. Commercial taxidermists will be required to record certain information and to make those records available for inspection. The bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments.
Schedule 1 [13] provides that a game hunting licence authorises the licence holder to possess the carcass or the skin or any other part of a game animal that the licence holder has harvested under the authority conferred by the licence. Schedule 1 [14] contains a consequential amendment. Schedule 1 [21] provides that the power of an inspector to require a vehicle to stop may be exercised without the inspector being accompanied by a police officer. This brings the Act into line with similar provisions in the Fisheries Management Act 1994.
Licensed hunters who assist the Game Council NSW in providing effective management of pest animals and game animals under a regime where they are accredited and can properly identify the appropriate game have a great deal to lose if they do the wrong thing. Any breaches of the Act or regulations will potentially lead to court action and heavy penalties, including forfeiture of their hunting equipment. If that equipment includes, for example, cars and expensive rifles and camping equipment this could amount to many thousands of dollars. Therefore, hunters have an incentive to do the right thing. Schedule 1 [22] removes the limit on the amount of a "thing"—that is how it is described in the Act—that a Local Court may require to be forfeited in connection with an offence under the Act.
In discussions with the Government, we have removed a clause in this bill that would have banned the use of particular types of poison in the management of game animals on declared public hunting land. This clause was specifically aimed at preventing the use of salt lick blocks, laced with deadly poisons—not 1080— aimed at killing large animals such as deer or horses in a cruel way, and the inherent danger to native animals. The Government has given an assurance that the trial of this method, which was due to begin shortly, will be postponed indefinitely to allow for a proper scientific assessment of this method, and will include both Game Council and national park representatives in this assessment.
In addition to these amendments, schedule 2 to the bill proposes a number of amendments of a consequential nature to other legislation. Schedule 2.1 amends the Firearms Act 1996 to enable a public or local authority to give permission to shoot on land that is owned by, or under the control or management of, that authority, and that is not within a metropolitan area, for the purpose of vertebrate pest animal control. Councils and other public land management bodies should be allowed to utilise the system of volunteer conservation hunters for vertebrate pest control on land under their authority. In fact, that has happened but every time it has had to be done under a permit issued by the commissioner.
All the proposed amendments have been carefully drafted so as to ensure that they do not compromise the principles and objects of the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002. The amendments proposed in the bill will add to the huge contribution that the Game Council currently provides in respect of conservation and protection of livestock in New South Wales. It will provide genuine, measurable benefits to the people, the economy and the environment in this State and at minimal cost to taxpayers. I note that recently in the Northern Star, the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who is not in the Chamber, spoke of her visits to several national parks in the past six months. She described the increase in feral animal population as "horrifying".
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is horrifying.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: It is. She is quite correct. She said:
It is an emergency - we need a state-wide integrated strategy to combat this threat. It needs to be professionally managed across public and private land and everyone including the Game Council has a role to play.
To my mind, there is no better professional body than the Game Council and no more dedicated conservationists than the volunteer conservationists when it comes to the control of game and feral animals in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12799
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS
Reference: Inquiry into Administrative Funding for Minor Parties
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: According to paragraph 2 of the resolution establishing the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I inform the House that on 13 June 2012 the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters received the following referral from the Premier, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquire into and report on matters relating to the administrative funding for minor parties and, specifically, whether the annual amount to be distributed from the Administration Fund to any such eligible minor party under section 97E of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 remains appropriate.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the President's gallery His Excellency Mr Michael Small, the High Commissioner of Canada, who is visiting the Parliament today. He is very welcome.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Dr JOHN KAYE [10.45 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 720 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding Gosford Public School's relocation to Henry Kendall High School be called on forthwith.
This motion calls for the release of all documents held by the Minister for Education or the Department of Education and Communities created since 27 March 2011 that relate to a review of alternative sites to the current proposal to relocate Gosford Public School to Henry Kendall High School. The intention of this motion is to get to the bottom of what is happening with the relocation. This matter is urgent because at 6.10 a.m. on 3 April 2012 the Minister for Education, Mr Adrian Piccoli, told Alan Jones on his 2GB program:
We looked at other options. We looked at all of the other options in detail, including reconsidering them after the election, and the decision was that the best site was at Henry Kendall.
I emphasise that the Minister said "including reconsidering them after the election". On 29 March 2012 Mr Chris Holstein, the member for Gosford, told the lower House:
This Government believes relocating Gosford Public School to the Henry Kendall High School site will be of great benefit to students and the community for many years to come. I assure the House that the Minister for Education carefully reviewed the former Government's plans to move the primary school to the Henry Kendall site. The review was one of the first election promises that this Government fulfilled. The Minister reviewed information from the department about the other sites it considered, why it did not choose a greenfield site, and why it saw the Henry Kendall High School site as the best place for the primary school.
This was the subject of a Government Information (Public Access) [GIPA] Act application wherein the community GIPA'ed—if I can use that as a verb—the department and sought all documents relevant to this matter. Guess what? Not a single document showed up that could be construed as a review conducted by this Government after it was elected on 27 March 2011. This is a simple matter: Either that review exists or it does not exist. If it exists, why was it not in the Government Information (Public Access) Act documents, and why does the Government not table it now?
In fact, the member for Gosford, Mr Chris Holstein, when talking to the member for Balmain, Mr Jamie Parker, held up a document and said, "This is the review." Yet that review did not show up in the Government Information (Public Access) Act documents. That review is crucial to the future of Gosford Public School and Henry Kendall High School. If the review exists it purportedly says that other sites were looked at but those sites were not appropriate. Yet no such document has ever been produced. No such document was produced as a result of the request or has ever been sighted by anyone.
The Government Information (Public Access) Act request was dated 14 February 2012. No such document has ever been sighted other than a bundle of papers that were shown by Chris Holstein to Jamie Parker. Either the Government has that review or it does not. If it does not have that review it has a lot of 12800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
explaining to do. If the Government does have that review why does it not put it in the public domain? Why was it hidden in the Government Information (Public Access) Act papers? This matter is urgent because construction is beginning at the site of Henry Kendall High School to prepare it for a co-location that is vehemently opposed by the community.
I have no doubt that the Government will respond to this motion for urgent debate by saying, "It is about elections. It is grandstanding." But nothing will hide the absence of honesty. Nothing will hide the fact that on the one hand Mr Holstein is telling Parliament and Mr Piccoli is telling Alan Jones that a review exists, yet on the other hand the application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act showed up nothing. It would be a simple matter for the Government to resolve this. If a review exists, the Government should table it right now and I will withdraw the motion. If the Government does not table it now, the motion is urgent because the community has a right to know exactly what is happening and what was done to ascertain whether there were other sites. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.50 a.m.]: On this occasion the Government opposes the motion for urgent debate and opposes the motion under Standing Order 52. I have not heard such rubbish and such a conspiracy theory since the grassy knoll incident. The Greens talk about honesty and dishonesty. This is the most dishonest attempt to create a political cause on the eve of council elections on the Central Coast that I have ever seen. This is a page one, number one, out of The Greens "Book of Issues"— "Try to get the Government to say 'No' to something, and you've got something to go out and campaign on." Obviously, the Government will say no to this because it is a farce. This motion is not urgent because, as I have outlined many times on behalf of the Minister for Education, the decision to relocate Gosford Public School was carefully reviewed by the Minister. Therefore, the motion does not deserve to be debated urgently.
It is not urgent because when the Liberals and The Nationals were in opposition they committed to reviewing former Minister Firth's decision regarding Gosford Public School, and we have delivered on that commitment. It is not urgent because the former Government decided to move Gosford Public School to the Henry Kendall High School site. After careful consideration that decision was upheld. Furthermore, as a result of the review of that decision, and based on community feedback that was provided by the member for Gosford, the plan has been improved to include a larger communal hall, two additional special programs rooms for the Gosford Public School, four upgraded science laboratories, and a new covered outdoor learning area for the Henry Kendall High School.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: While I appreciate the information the Minister is providing, we are debating the issue of urgency. The Minister should confine his comments to that.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The Minister is explaining why this matter is not urgent. If background has been provided on why the matter is not urgent, which is the peculiarity of the circumstances, the Minister should be allowed to say it.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: It is a well-settled convention of this House that a debate about urgency relates to why this matter is more urgent than any other matter. The Minister's comments go to the substantive debate on the merits of whether the school should be open or not open, but not to whether this matter is more urgent than any other matter before the House.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Minister's comments are within the realm of discrediting the need for urgency.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr Deputy-President, without commenting on your ruling, the matter is not urgent because the matters to which I referred have been addressed. That was the point I was making. It may be urgent if Dr John Kaye is able to establish a case that the issues have not been addressed. As I stated earlier, this is just a political conspiracy theory from The Greens so that they can issue a press release. It is page one, number one, of The Greens "Book of Campaigning in Local Government Elections"—"Put something up at the last moment. The Government, for all the right reasons, says 'No', and then put out a press release that the Government is trying to cover up." It is just unbelievable.
It is not urgent because the Minister for Education believes the improved plan delivers the best educational outcomes for the people of Gosford, now and in the future. As I indicated earlier, the decision was made by the previous Government. We carefully considered that decision and supported it. The Opposition 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12801
Deputy Whip probably should have been listening when I made that statement and then thought twice about her silly point of order. The matter is not urgent because the department has advised that Dr John Kaye requested a copy of the records released in the Government Information (Public Access) [GIPA] Act request, and has been provided with access. The matter is not urgent because this is just for The Greens own political expediency. As I have indicated, the local government elections are getting closer and closer. The Central Coast Greens do not have any information to run on.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 15
Mr Buckingham Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Ms Cotsis Mr Searle Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Dr Kaye Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Mr Shoebridge Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Ms Voltz
Noes, 21
Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Borsak Mr Khan Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Lynn Mr Clarke Mr MacDonald Ms Cusack Mrs Maclaren-Jones Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mrs Mitchell Dr Phelps
Pair
Ms Fazio Mr Harwin
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2012
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 2012
STATE REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2012
Bills received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. Greg Pearce.
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bills through all their remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second readings set down as an order of the day for a later hour. 12802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
NATIONAL PARK ESTATE (SOUTH-WESTERN CYPRESS RESERVATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Second Reading
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
WOMEN IN POLITICS
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [11.08 a.m.]: I move:
1. That this House notes:
(a) the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates in elections for the Australian Federal Parliament, and
(b) the electoral milestones for women in Australia have happened under Coalition Governments and further notes the achievements of these Coalition women:
(i) Dame Enid Lyons as the first woman elected to the House of Representatives and to hold a Federal Cabinet position,
(ii) Dame Annabelle Rankin as the first woman to hold the position as the Federal Whip and first woman as Minister to administer her own department,
(iii) Dame Ivy Wedgewood as the first woman to chair a Senate committee,
(iv) Dame Margaret Guilfoyle as the first female Senator to be a member of Cabinet, and
(v) Margaret Reid as the first female President of the Senate.
2. That this House calls on the Australian Labor Party to introduce preselection equality to ensure women are selected on merit and not a quota system or policies of affirmative action.
For a rather small nation Australia has been a pioneer in the advancement of women in society, leading the way in giving women the right to vote, to run for Parliament and developing policy initiatives to assist women including sex discrimination legislation. This year we mark the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates for Federal Parliament. Although New Zealand will claim it led the way in granting women the right to vote, in 1893, it was in South Australia in 1894 that women were first granted both the right to vote and to hold parliamentary office. In 1902 the Commonwealth Franchise Act was passed, giving all women the right to vote and to run for Federal Parliament. However, it took another 41 years before a woman was to be elected. Many political milestones for women across Australia have been achieved by women of the Liberal Party or its predecessors and the Liberal Party receives little credit for the role it has played in shaping policy direction and advancing women in society. Tom Harley, chairman of the Menzies Research Centre, described the Liberal Party's history of women as:
A story founded on the achievements of some highly talented, visionary and purposeful women, shaping policy and directing government across all policy areas. It is also a story of the party that took early action to ensure women were central to Australian government.
Of significance are the first women elected to the parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia, all of whom were Liberal women, as was the first woman to be elected to local government. Most importantly, all were elected without the aid of a quota system or affirmative action. Furthermore, since 1901, of the 10 longest-serving women in Federal Parliament, eight have been Liberal women: Kathy Sullivan, 27 years; Bronwyn Bishop, 25 years and still going; Annabelle Rankin, 23 years; Amanda Vanstone, 22 years; Margaret Reid and Ivy Wedgewood, 21 years; and Kay Patterson and Susan Knowles, 20 years.
In government, the Coalition has been a pioneer for women in executive positions in Parliament and also for women's policies. Under the Menzies Government a number of policy initiatives were introduced and extended to support women and children, including the introduction of free milk for schoolchildren, extension of the child endowment to firstborn children, giving Aboriginal women as well as men the right to vote, greater equality for women seeking to divorce or separate and the creation of the Women's Bureau to research women in paid employment. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12803
Under Harold Holt the ban on the employment of married women in the public service was abolished. In 1969 under the John Gorton Government a survey was conducted to investigate existing childcare arrangements to address barriers against women entering the workforce. Under William McMahon the Child Care Act 1972 was introduced to provide Federal funding for child care, and the family allowance was introduced, which was paid to mothers under the Malcolm Fraser Government.
In 1998 the Howard Government introduced reforms to stop parents with child support debts leaving the country; restructured the family allowance; enabled superannuation accounts to be divided in the event of divorce; introduced the much-loved baby bonus versions 1, 2 and 3; introduced the 30 per cent rebate for out-of- pocket childcare expenses; amended the Family Law Act 1975 to ensure shared parenting responsibilities; and introduced the Partnership Against Domestic Violence. When it comes to appointing women to Cabinet the Liberal Party has done pretty well. The first State Cabinet Minister was Dame Florence Cardell-Oliver from Western Australia's Women's Country League, which later became part of the Liberal Party. Federally, 70 per cent of female Cabinet Ministers have come from the Liberal Party. Dame Enid Lyons not only was the first woman appointed to Cabinet by then Prime Minister Robert Menzies but also was the first woman to be elected to the House of Representatives when she won the seat of Darwin in 1943.
Dame Enid Lyons was a leader for women in so many ways: a Prime Minister's wife at 33, and a mother of 11 with a career first as a teacher, a mother, a politician and then a journalist. Much of her parliamentary contribution focused on issues relating to women and children. She used her position to campaign for equal pay for returned service women, increases in the widows pension, the right of women to retain nationality and citizenship on marriage, and improvements in maternity care. But she was best known for ensuring the extension of child endowment. However, the contribution of Liberal women goes further with the entrance of Dame Annabelle Rankin into the Senate in 1946. She was the second woman to be elected to the Senate, following Dorothy Tangney. Margaret Fitzherbert stated:
Annabelle Rankin symbolised through her work during the war that the role of women was quickly changing.
Annabelle went on to become the first woman to serve as Whip, first as Opposition Whip in 1947, then Government Whip in 1951, where she remained for 15 years. In government she also became the first female member of the Parliamentary Committee for Public Works, through which she secured better facilities for women in public buildings. During the Holt Government she was appointed Minister for Housing and introduced reforms for single aged pensioners and skilled migrants. In 1971 she became the first woman to be appointed head of an overseas diplomatic mission when she became High Commissioner to New Zealand. When asked how she achieved so many firsts Dame Annabelle Rankin said:
I love hard work and one thing led to another. It's a matter of recognising the opportunity and grabbing it. Nothing was given to me easily. I had to justify every appointment I received.
Annabelle Rankin was the first of a new generation of Liberal women. She was elected to Parliament in her thirties, unmarried and without children. On her passing in 1986 Prime Minister Bob Hawke described her as a pioneer in the involvement of women in Australian Federal politics. In looking at the history of women in the Liberal Party I cannot ignore the critical role of the Conservative Women's League across the country, particularly in supporting and advocating for women in Parliament. The Women's Liberal League began in New South Wales in 1902, decades before the Liberal Party was formed. The league was associated closely with the Liberal Reform Association, which was a male political wing.
Interestingly, the male wing formed one year after the women's league, which was leading the way. The branch-based structure of both leagues was linked to State and Federal conferences, which remain the basis of our party today. Although the league's branches operated independently of each other, they shared a central or State Conference to ensure democracy and participation of members in the political process. One original objective of the Women's Liberal League as outlined by Margaret Fitzherbert in Liberal Women Federation to 1949 was:
… to encourage loyalty to the British Empire, to cultivate the spirit of true liberalism, to raise the standards of public life and to improve the position of women in all spheres of life.
Furthermore, the league was committed only to supporting candidates who advocated liberal and patriotic values, regardless of gender—these women were leaders of gender equality. The New South Wales Women's Liberal League developed a platform based on liberal values: they wanted responsible government, preservation of individual liberty and enterprise, equal pay for equal work, agricultural training for girls, equal ownership of 12804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
children and the right to share in one's husband's income. Over the years the women remained committed to their platform. The New South Wales league provided a political avenue for women. As one of the largest anti- socialist women's organisations it provided training for women in politics, and acted as a lobbyist body and effective and organised campaign unit.
The birth of the Women's Liberal League and the male association brought reform of the selection process for candidates whereby male and female members equally selected candidates, rather than the leaders of the men's league deciding the candidate behind closed doors, which had been the previous process. The principle for selecting candidates remained focused on elected Liberals of character and ability. This has remained a fundamental principle for Liberal selections to date—politics is about a battle of ideas not gender categories. In late 1916, in anticipation of the formation of the Nationalist Party, the Women's Liberal League changed its name to the Women's Reform League. Following this formation the league disbanded, but not before constituting women's branches and the eligibility of women to hold executive positions.
After the league's formation in 1925 the first woman was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Millicent Preston-Stanley had been an active member of the league having first run unsuccessfully for the State seat of Eastern Suburbs in 1922. She became a councillor from 1923 to 1925, and in 1925 in her second bid she won the State seat. During her term Millicent campaigned to reduce maternal mortality, reform child welfare, provide better housing, amend the Health Act and successfully remove powers of police to use force to search female prisoners. Unfortunately, due to changes in the voting system from proportional representation to single member constituency, Millicent was not re-elected.
Another leading woman was Dame Ivy Wedgewood, a member of the Australian Women's National League in Victoria. Dame Ivy was instrumental in championing with Sir Robert Menzies the establishment of the Liberal Party with the leagues from Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales as well as the Queensland Women's Electoral League [QWEL]. Menzies was in many ways a progressive political leader: he was the first to encourage women to be politically involved in the party and ensured their active participation. In 1948 the Liberal Party's Federal platform was revised for the 1949 election.
As Margaret Fitzherbert states in her book So Many Firsts, the policy platform at the time was regarded as radical and included equality of opportunity, liberties and status for men and women and equal freedom in all civic and political activities in the community; eliminations of anomalies in employment opportunities for women and the institution of further inquiries into the principles of assessing women's wage rates with a view to the correction of existing injustices; uniformity of marriage and divorce laws within the Commonwealth; appointment of women to committees, commissions or similar bodies concerned with the status and rights of women, housing policy, and the care and education of children; and every practical assistance towards ensuring the provision of all modern and progressive domestic amenities for women, particularly in country areas.
With Menzies as leader, Dame Ivy Wedgewood quickly became a senior figure in the newly formed Liberal Party, holding positions of Victorian State Vice-President and Chair of the Liberal Women's Committee. She remained an advocate for women seeking public office and in doing so entrenched the Federal Women's Committee within the Liberal Party. In 1969 in an article for Woman's Day on women in politics her message to women was:
Get into your women's organisations and train yourself for Parliament.
This message holds true today. In 1949 Dame Ivy Wedgewood became the third woman to be elected to the Senate and during her parliamentary career was instrumental in the formation of government policy, particularly in the areas of welfare. Following Dame Ivy Wedgewood came Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who served as both a Minister and a member of Cabinet. She too held a range of portfolios, including education, and social security and finance—the first woman to hold the finance portfolio. As the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care, Margaret understood the importance of child care and the need for choice in parenting.
She was a strong advocate for the extension of maternity leave for all women, not just Commonwealth employees. She was the longest-serving female member of Cabinet until surpassed by Amanda Vanstone in 2006. Some say Amanda was the most recognisable member of Cabinet and that recognition was due to her contributions to difficult portfolios, including employment, education, training and youth affairs, family and community services and immigration, multicultural affairs and Indigenous affairs. As I have mentioned, the longest serving woman in Parliament remains Kathy Sullivan. She was the first woman to serve in both Houses; firstly as a Senator and then as the member for Moncrieff. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12805
Bronwyn Bishop is another woman of many firsts. She was the first women to serve as the New South Wales State Liberal President and the first female senator for New South Wales. Following the election of the Howard Government she was appointed Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. She was the first woman to hold a defence portfolio and in that role she developed the defence industry policy framework that remains today. After the 1996 election a number of women entered Federal Parliament without the use of quotas and it was under a Howard Government the number of female Ministers in Cabinet increased significantly. In 2006 the party celebrated the anniversary of the tenth woman in Cabinet. Seven of those women were from the Liberal Party and, of that seven, five were appointed under John Howard—again without the aid of affirmative action.
Another significant woman during the Howard years was Helen Coonan, as the first female deputy leader of the Senate and the first woman to hold a Treasury portfolio when appointed Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Revenue. In addition, Margaret Reid became the first female President of the Senate. Over the years Liberal women have driven policy reform on a number of fronts. Working with industry, Liberal women in Federal Parliament, led by Jennie Ferris, established a Senate inquiry into gynaecological cancers, which resulted in the report "Breaking the Silence." I must note the work of the Hon. Marie Ficarra, who at the time was an advocate for the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil and for the implementation of a national vaccination program for young women to help prevent cervical cancer.
It is not only in the Cabinet room and in the corridors of our parliaments that Liberal women are making a difference. There are a number of Liberal women across Australia who have not been public faces but contribute to the success and sustainability of the party and mentor women into parliament. I acknowledge the work of so many Liberal women, particularly in New South Wales, who at the moment represent over 60 per cent of office bearers. I refer to women such as Helen Wayland, the longest serving President of the New South Wales Women's Council and Chris McDiven, former Women's Council President, the second woman to be State President and the first female Federal President. I acknowledge the Hon. Catherine Cusack as the first female New South Wales Young Liberals President. The New South Wales Liberal Party has continued to lead the way in providing training programs for women in politics.
In 1995 the New South Wales Liberal Party launched the Liberal Women's Forum, a training program for women seeking selection. This launch coincided with the Labor Party's decision to introduce quotas. I will state again: It was after the 1996 election that a large number of women entered Federal Parliament without the use of quotas because of the Liberal Women's Forum. In 2009 I relaunched a similar program ahead of the 2010 Federal election and 2011 State election. As with previous programs, the aim was to identify, promote and support women seeking leadership and parliamentary positions. Rather than using quotas or affirmative action, the Liberal Women's Forum provides women with an understanding of the rules and the skills and experience to stand for selection and win in their own right based on merit.
Over the years we have seen a number of women enter parliament having participated in the forum, including Joanna Gash, Marise Payne, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Helen Coonan, Dana Vale, Gabrielle Upton, Robyn Parker, Gladys Berejiklian and Rosa Sage, to name a few. Politics is traditionally a male-dominated profession but, as in many other industries, women are capable of performing no matter the numbers—and we continue to deliver. Many women and men balance the pressures of work, travel and families. More female politicians are now having children while serving. It was Jackie Kelly who was the first woman to give birth whilst serving as a Minister.
In the time remaining I will focus on the role quotas play in seeing women elected to Parliament. The Liberal Party does not support quotas as a means to increase the number of women running or elected to parliament. As I have stated, for over 100 years the Liberal Party and its predecessors have focused on providing training and resources to assist women. Our focus is, and has been, on identifying and promoting the numerous women of talent within our party and community, encouraging them to take on leadership roles and stand for selection. Setting a quota for women to be represented in Parliament may increase a party's overall representation of women but one must ask: at what cost?
Quotas are in direct contrast to equal opportunity, as women are favoured over men and possibly over someone who is better qualified. I believe quotas create a culture of essentialism, in which women are unable to be represented by anyone other than a woman. All this does is reinforce the stereotype and traditional images of women as weaker or unable to achieve selection based on merit or performance, thereby creating further division between the genders. Furthermore, it implies that only men can represent men, only seniors can represent seniors, only children can represent children, and so on. Ultimately it will create a situation where other groups claim representation based on religion or age. The fact remains that as elected representatives our role is to represent our constituents regardless of age, gender or race. 12806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
This motion focuses on celebrating the valuable contribution and achievements made by all Liberal women. I am proud that women in the Liberal Party make their contribution without the aid of quota systems. We get ahead based on merit, and the history of achievements by Coalition women in Parliament is testament to that. I will conclude by saying that, like many in this Chamber, I would like to see an increased representation of women in Parliament, but we must avoid assuming that all women as a collective group are the same. By doing so we are devaluing women, reinforcing stereotypes and hindering their advancement. The fact remains that women exhibit the same diversity of talent, challenges, and potential as men and have a right to be selected on merit. I commend the motion to the House.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I welcome to the public gallery leaders from independent schools who are attending the secondary schools leadership program conducted by the parliamentary education section. Welcome to the Legislative Council. At the moment the House is debating a private members' business motion in relation to the anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates in the Federal Parliament. I hope you enjoy your time with us.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [11.26 a.m.]: I acknowledge our young leaders in the gallery and wish you all the best. I hope you will learn a few things, or we will learn a few things from you. I acknowledge the first and second part of the motion concerning the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and stand as candidates in elections for the Australian Federal Parliament. It is an important milestone. Australia was one of the first countries in the world to provide women with the right to vote. I acknowledge the contributions made by women of the Coalition. I will move an amendment.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Are you trying to politicise it?
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: No. I am happy to acknowledge the member's motion which recognises the 110th anniversary for the right of women to vote. I acknowledge that the Coalition has produced a number of women in politics over the years.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Magnificent women.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I acknowledge that. However, as the Government wants to politicise the motion, I move:
That the question be amended by omitting paragraph 2 and inserting instead:
(c) the electoral milestones that have happened under Labor, and further notes the achievements of these Labor women, including:
(i) Julia Gillard, MP, as Australia's first female Prime Minister,
(ii) Kristina Keneally as the first female Premier of New South Wales,
(iii) Anna Bligh as the first female Premier of Queensland,
(iv) Joan Kirner as the first female Premier of Victoria,
(v) Carmen Lawrence as the first female Premier of Western Australia,
(vi) Lara Giddings as the first female Premier of Tasmania,
(vii) Clare Martin as the first female Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and
(viii) Rosemary Follett as the first female Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory.
Labor has always advocated for equality. It has a long and proud history of pursuing economic, social, racial and gender equality. The Government has delivered nothing for the women of this State in this budget. The Government is a disgrace. The Government has done nothing for equal pay.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Sophie Cotsis will resume her seat.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is difficult for the member to deliver her speech when the Government Whip keeps interjecting. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12807
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. There is far too much interjection in the Chamber. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis will be heard in silence.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: The Hon. Sophie Cotsis should not mislead the House about Labor's consistent support for the White Australia Policy until the mid 1960s.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: The Labor Party has delivered reforms that improved the lives of women across our country. One of those important reforms is parental leave. Another very important reform under State Labor was domestic violence leave for women and men in the public sector. In the 1970s it was a Federal Labor Government that championed equal pay for women, recognising that not every woman could, or should, be dependent upon a male breadwinner, and that women who perform work of equal quality deserve to be paid equally for their efforts.
It has come to light that the New South Wales Coalition Government continues to use legal technicalities so that it will not have to give the community and social sector workers of this State equal pay. In December last year Fair Work Australia handed down its decision on equal pay, and the Gillard Government provided $2 billion in funding to support equal pay for women in the social and community sector. In February this year there was another decision on equal pay. But the New South Wales Government is not making any decision regarding equal pay. Prior to the last election the Coalition said it would fund its fair share to implement the decision.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: The matter raised by the member is not relevant to the motion before the House. The motion commemorates the anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates in elections for Federal Parliament. It is not about the State Government's policy in relation to wages.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The member is speaking to issues of the same type raised by the mover of the motion, and therefore is within the parameters for the debate set by Government members.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I will allow the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to continue. However, I remind her that she must confine her remarks to the leave of the motion.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: If the Women's Liberal League supports equal pay for equal work, I suggest the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones and Minister Pru Goward knock on the doors of Mr O'Farrell and Mr Pearce and urge them to make a political decision today. If they really believe in equal pay for equal work, they should make that decision today and support the 30,000 people who are providing some of the most important services to society's most vulnerable. They are looking after victims of domestic violence, the homeless and those suffering from alcohol diseases. The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones should champion the cause of these workers, 87 per cent of who are women.
I would like to highlight what this Government is not doing. It is not providing primary carers of babies, foster carers and surrogate carers with parental leave. The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones should urge the Government to make a decision entitling foster carers and surrogate parents to parental leave as they are the primary carers of babies. Labor provided this country with its first female Prime Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard. It has also delivered our first female Attorney-General, the Hon. Nicola Roxon. Here in our own great State of New South Wales the first female Premier, the Hon. Kristina Keneally, came through the ranks of the Australian Labor Party.
These women, and their colleagues both female and male, have delivered tremendous reforms for women in this country. They have delivered paid parental leave, as well as paid parental leave so that fathers can become more involved in caring for their children. Under a Federal Labor Government reforms to the Family Law Act have ensured that women and children fleeing domestic and family violence can feel confident that the courts will treat the safety of children as the primary consideration, above all else. They have delivered reforms that make it easier for women to speak up in court about domestic and family violence when before they may have been penalised for doing so. 12808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
Labor has delivered economic reforms that benefit women. We have made changes to increase women's retirement savings. We have done this because we know that most women retire with far less in superannuation savings than do men. I have spoken on this topic on many occasions. Over the next 18 years many women, the baby boomer women, will not have enough retirement savings. We have to do more. I ask that those opposite support Labor in ensuring that women have more retirement savings. This is an important issue because mothers take time off work to give birth and care for young children, and may return to work later.
On average, men are paid 39 years of work compared with just 20 years of work for women. But women's economic needs are equal to those of men. In fact, they are greater because women live longer. The Government, in last year's Budget Paper No. 6, spoke about financial pressures and the fact that the average age of women will increase over the next 15 to 20 years. The reforms that Labor has delivered will provide an extra $78,000 upon retirement to a woman who is now in her thirties on average weekly earnings with a broken work pattern.
In its final budget the former State Labor Government announced $50 million over five years to combat domestic violence, including housing, support services and legal assistance. Former Attorney General John Hatzistergos worked with stakeholders to develop and enact legislation that reformed the way we deal with sexual assault in this State. The Domestic and Family Violence Grants Program has been under review for the past 10 months. I have spoken about this matter on many occasions. Many community groups are asking where the money is.
While Labor has been delivering reforms, the O'Farrell Government has dragged this State backwards when it comes to women. Women are going backwards under this Government. The Premier's Expert Advisory Council on Women has been abolished—an advisory council established by a Liberal Government. The O'Farrell Government abolished this whole-of-government advisory council, which sits at the centre of government, in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. This council ensured women's financial needs in terms of housing, health and education. In addition, the Office for Women's Policy has been taken out of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
For this Government women are out of sight and out of mind. But wilful blindness is not confined to the New South Wales Liberal Party. South Australia was the first State in Australia to grant women the right to vote. So it is particularly galling that the current leader of the South Australian Liberal Party, a woman, told women they should simply ignore discrimination based on gender and it will go away. That was the advice Isobel Redmond gave women a few months ago. What would her predecessors in the suffragette movement say about that? Those sentiments are out of step with modern Australia; indeed, they are a slap in the face to women of all political persuasions who have fought hard to bring about gender equality. I have a lot of time for the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones, and I acknowledge the work that she does. But she is misguided in thinking that the Liberal Party has the best preselection process for women. As President of the Liberal Party in 2010 and 2011, what were her reforms when it came to preselecting women candidates?
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: She got herself preselected.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: How many women are there in the Legislative Assembly? It is nine out of 51. This is not about her; it is about other women. She was President of the Liberal Party when preselection processes were going on. But what happened? Only nine of 51 members of the Legislative Assembly are women. How far backwards have you gone? You are embarrassed.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is impossible to hear the member because of all the interjections from those opposite. I ask that you direct the Minister for Police not to use props in the Chamber to fan down our members while they are talking.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The Minister for Police is also the Minister for Emergency Services and because the Hon. Sophie Cotsis is making such a heated speech he is trying to cool her down before something happens.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: This is why the motion should not be politicised. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12809
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: You are.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Government members should not be hypocritical; they should not come into the Chamber and tell us how to preselect. They should examine their processes. The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones was President of the Liberal Party, and how many members in the Legislative Assembly are women? It is nine out of 51. Government members should get their facts right. The status of women in this State is going backwards. Yesterday I asked the Minister for Finance and Services a question about part-time work in the public sector. Some 87 per cent of part-time positions are filled by women and I asked the Minister whether he would rule out cutting those positions. He would not give a straight answer. This Government is setting back the status of women in this State. This Government does not care about women's issues. [Time expired.]
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.41 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones, and I congratulate her on her efforts. We particularly support paragraph 1 (a) of the motion, which states:
1. That this House notes:
(a) the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates in elections for the Australian Federal Parliament.
As I am not a member of either Labor or the Coalition I will not critique their preselection policies; I will just speak on the general principle of women's right to vote. The Christian Democratic Party and its earlier incarnation, the Call to Australia Party, have always supported women's right to vote. Many of our candidates have been female, including Mrs Freda Brown and Dr Claire Isbester, a leading paediatrician. As members know, our party has had two female representatives in this place: the Hon. Marie Bignold and my wife, the Hon. Elaine Nile, who spent nearly 15 years in the upper House and was very involved in various committees. She campaigned particularly long, hard, and successfully, for compensation for approximately 500 innocent AIDS victims—mainly women. We have also just nominated for the upcoming Federal election a female representative, Robyn Peebles, to lead our Senate team. Hopefully she will be elected and will prevent The Greens getting a Senate seat.
Suffrage—the right of women to vote—is something that Australians have not always been able to take for granted. In 1902 Australia was the first country in the world to give women both the right to vote in Federal elections and the right to be elected to the national Parliament. New Zealand granted women the right to vote in 1893. There was quite a campaign at a State level to give women the right to vote. The right of women to vote and to seek election in South Australia was granted in 1895 and the right of women to vote in Western Australia was granted in 1899. The term "suffragettes" was used around the world to describe all women who campaigned for the right to vote in elections. From the 1880s and through the 1890s each Australian colony had at least one suffragette society. The societies published leaflets and organised debates, public meetings, letter-writing campaigns and large petitions for deputations to members of their colonial parliaments. One petition collected in those early days, in 1891, had 30,000 signatures and was presented to the Victorian Parliament. Another petition presented in the 1800s was from 11,600 women in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
One organisation that was very involved in the right of women to vote was the National Women's Christian Temperance Union. Most people are not aware of the role that organisation played. Originally, its main purpose was to try to control the evils of alcohol, which is why it was called the "temperance union". Not long after the formation of the organisation in 1891 one of its main areas of activity became the right for women to vote. In 1895 the temperance union produced pamphlets entitled "Sixteen Reasons for Supporting Women's Suffrage", which were distributed all around Australia. The leaflet contained three main arguments for giving women the right to vote:
Because Parliament should be a reflection of the wishes of the people.
Because a Government of the people, by the people and for the people, should mean all the people and not one half.
Because most laws affect women as much as men.
The final point made in the leaflet was simple:
Because, to sum up all reasons in one – it is just.
12810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
The Women's Christian Temperance Union played a major role in promoting its petitions in all the States. Even though it was a very conservative organisation, promoting traditional values and its belief that the dangers of alcohol could not be tackled in isolation, it also pursued a wide-ranging reform agenda, mostly relating to the welfare of women and children. Because of its association with a sister organisation in the United States of America the Women's Christian Temperance Union became a major supporter of the campaign for the right of women to vote in Australia as it was believed that power at the ballot box was the only way to achieve its goals. The temperance union was also an early advocate of equal pay, particularly for women. In 1900 the constitution of the union stated:
We believe in total abstinence for the individual, prohibition for the state and nation, equal standard of purity for men and women, equal wages for equal work without regard to sex, the ballot in the hands of women, arbitration between nations ... [the] Holy Bible as our standard faith.
The organisation continues to this day. In recent years its total national membership was 4,000 across the States of Australia and it still plays an active role. Its recent priorities include protection of the home from alcohol and other drugs; the age of consent; euthanasia; pornography; the prevention of prostitution and brothels; the control of violence and sex in the media; moral standards; youth unemployment; youth suicide; gambling and the social issues arising from gambling; literacy and crime; Aboriginal equality; equal opportunity for both men and women; law and the status of women; women and ageing; health issues, especially in regard to foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal effects syndrome; international relations and peace; and social welfare, including alcoholism and smoking addictions among women. The organisation has played a very important role in women's issues in this nation and it has played an important role in getting women the right to vote.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): I welcome to the public gallery members of the Zonta Club of Berry, who are guests of the member for Kiama, Gareth Ward. Welcome, ladies. Today we are debating a private member's motion in relation to the right for women to vote and to stand as candidates in elections, which I am sure you will be interested in. You would probably also like to watch your advocate from Shoalhaven, the Hon. Paul Green, in action.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: It's a stitch up.
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Great timing.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [11.49 a.m.]: It isn't, seriously; it is what we in the Christian Democratic Party call divine timing. I also speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party on this important motion and I commend the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: And thank God for the divine timing.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Of course I acknowledge Lord Jesus Christ for the divine timing. Thank you. This motion celebrates the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates in elections for the Australian Federal Parliament, and makes known the electoral milestones for women in Australian politics. In 1902 women gained the right to vote and to stand for the Australian Federal Parliament. Women in New South Wales also gained the right to vote; however, it took another 16 years for them to be granted the right to stand for election to the other place and 24 years for this place. Since then the number of women in politics has grown significantly in New South Wales. Women account for about 23 per cent of parliamentarians in the other place and 31 per cent in this place. I read the parliamentary e-brief that examines the history of women in politics.
The Hon. Helen Westwood: Pretty brief, wasn't it?
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Sadly, it was pretty brief. Unfortunately, the document made no mention of the Hon. Elaine Nile, who was a substantial contributor to our party for many years. I commend her and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their work behind the scenes in advocating for women's rights in all aspects of life. I acknowledge Elaine today and hope that her great contribution to this House and this State will be noted in the next publication. I note also that local government elections are around the corner, in September. The media contacted me the other day and asked me whether there should be equal numbers of women and men serving on local councils. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12811
I suggested to them that at the end of the day it is up to the people to choose who they feel best represents them. But there is no doubt that a good outcome is achieved when both sexes come together to debate leadership issues. That is because in many ways women see things that men do not. For example, my wife asks me why I do not pick up my clothes that are all over the bedroom floor and I tell her that I cannot see them. By the way, I am not suggesting that women have to pick up my clothes; I am merely suggesting that males and females see things differently.
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Stick to the script. Get out of the bedroom.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Okay. I am out of the bedroom. My point is that women have a wonderful gift for leadership. There is no doubt that having a mix of men and women representatives produces fantastic outcomes at local, State and Federal government levels. Perhaps I will retract my earlier comments about my domestic issues.
The Hon. Helen Westwood: Would you like a shovel now?
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Yes, I need a couple of shovels. The good folk of Berry and the Zonta Club know who I am and how I operate so they will know exactly where I am coming from with those comments, but I suppose the House has been given a sneak peek of my fallibility as a man. The Christian Democratic Party commends the motion to the House and congratulates the member on bringing it to our attention.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.54 a.m.]: It is always interesting to hear contributions to debate on a Thursday. I too acknowledge the ladies from the Berry Zonta Club. I had many meetings with our local St George club when I was the member for Georges River. Zonta clubs do marvellous work in Australia and internationally by supporting the professional development of women and their contributions to the community. They also do a fabulous job of fundraising for many worthwhile causes. I acknowledge the Zonta Club of Berry and its illustrious local member, Mr Gareth Ward.
It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise to support the motion of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones, which acknowledges the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and to stand as candidates for election to the Australian Federal Parliament, and notes that major electoral milestones for women in Australia have occurred under Liberal and Coalition governments—and also Labor governments. I place on record my thanks to the Liberal Party for giving me the great honour of serving in the lower House and in this place. Although I spent the first 16 years of my career in local government as an independent councillor, I was a member of the Liberal Party. People knew that I was a member of the Liberal Party but that I preferred to stand in local government as an independent candidate. I am proud to have been a member of the Liberal Party for close to 38 years. I have always received good support from the Liberal Party head office and its great branch members.
Without trying to politicise the debate on this motion, I will place some quotes on record. When speaking out against his party's quota system for electing women to Australian parliaments former Labor Minister Barry Cohen wrote in the Australian on 14 April 2012, "I don't care if every MP is a woman provided they arrive there democratically." Barry Cohen says that he loathes quotas. I stand here, like all my female Liberal Party and Nationals colleagues, knowing that I was elected to this place democratically and on merit and not because of some undemocratic quota system based on my gender. I respect that the Labor Party can have a quota system if it wants one, but I am proud that the Coalition will not have such a system. We have to do more to encourage talented women who have contributed to their communities to represent other parties in all councils and parliaments in Australia. That is a responsibility of all men and women who are members of the Liberal Party, let alone members of Parliament. I believe The Nationals members agree with that stance.
I acknowledge that the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones upon her election last year became the second- youngest Liberal woman to be elected to this place. Similarly, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell is not just the youngest Nationals member to sit in this place but the youngest woman ever elected to this House. I congratulate both of them. The Deputy-President of this House, the Hon. Jenny Gardiner, who was elected to this House in 1991, is currently the longest-serving woman in the New South Wales Parliament. As members will be aware, from 1984 to 1991 the Hon. Jenny Gardiner was General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the National Party of Australia—a period when she was the only woman to head the organisational arm of a major political party in this country. That is a great achievement. 12812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
The suffragettes fought long and hard for the rights of women both to vote and subsequently to stand for election. In 1902 Australia was the first country to give women both the right to vote in Federal elections and also the right to be elected to Parliament on a national basis. While New Zealand granted women the right to vote in 1893, by 1902 it had still not granted women the right to stand for election. I pay tribute to Vida Goldstein, Mary Gilmore, Marie Kirk, Rose Scott, Mary Lee, Edith Cowan, Henrietta Dugdale and Annette Bear-Crawford—to name just a few of the inspiring women who spearheaded the movement for equality for women.
It is true that all major electoral milestones for women in Australia have occurred under the conservative or Liberal-Nationals governments. The first woman elected to the New South Wales Parliament, Ms Millicent Preston-Stanley, in 1925 was a member of the United Australia Party, which was the predecessor of the Liberal Party led by Sir Robert Menzies. My campaign manager when I was elected to the lower House to represent the electorate of Georges River was Mike Stanley, who is a very proud descendant of Millicent Preston-Stanley. Mike is a seasoned Liberal campaigner who cut his teeth on Minister Jillian Skinner's first campaign to win the seat of North Shore in 1994.
I cannot imagine what Millicent Preston-Stanley had to go through in becoming the first woman to be elected to the New South Wales Parliament. I have read she was a sturdy woman with a firm chin and deep voice, and that she was a fine platform performer, proficient at turning hecklers' remarks to her advantage. She was called a battleaxe but she retorted, "A battleaxe is a pretty useful weapon, if it is kept sharp and bright." I am advised that she always responded to interjections in the other place and appeared unworried by her unique position as the first woman in Parliament. She continued campaigning on maternal mortality, calling also for reform in child welfare, an amended Health Act and better housing. She castigated J. T. Lang for restricting the widows pensions to mothers with dependent children. She improved child endowment and, although embarrassed by her party's opposition to the bill, she publicly decried Labor's efforts to pass the bills if she deserted the Nationalists. She was a woman of integrity.
The Liberal party elected the first woman to lead a major political party in the State when the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski was elected leader in 1998. Kerry Chikarovski served as Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women. I am often told by both Labor and Liberal people what a brilliant Minister for Industrial Relations she was, as is our present incumbent the Hon. Greg Pearce. WorkCover staff often recount to me how Kerry Chikarovski is a woman of the people who would walk the floors of the office and listen to the views of staff on industrial and workplace safety policy. I was honoured to serve in Kerry Chikarovski's shadow ministry and have nothing but respect for her.
I place on record the amazing achievements of a woman who motivated and inspired me to be elected to the Parliament—the late the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, AO. Virginia was a great pioneer of the Liberal Party and of the New South Wales Parliament. I was fortunate to serve with her for a term between 1995 and 1999. She was passionate and dedicated not only to her own community but to New South Wales and Australia at large. Virginia Chadwick, AO was a role model for women such as I, encouraging us to get involved with Liberal Party representation at the local, State and Federal levels. Virginia was helpful to me in my preselection for the seat of Georges River and subsequently in my first term in the other place.
At the age of 33 in 1978 Virginia was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Council, becoming the youngest woman from the Liberal Party elected to this place. She served the party and Parliament faithfully and became the first female Opposition Whip. When the Greiner Government was swept into power in 1988 she became the first female New South Wales Liberal Minister and was responsible for family and community services. Bringing her passion and dedication to the job, she was an outstanding Minister and oversaw the transformation of the department to focus on vulnerable children in vulnerable families in great need. With her knowledge and experience in the educational sector and her success as Minister for Family and Community Services, Virginia was appointed the State's first female Minister for Education.
In 1998 she again made history by becoming the first female to hold the position of President of this House. She will be remembered as a fair and balanced presiding officer. I acknowledge that she was also a valued mentor to our current President, the Hon. Don Harwin. In 2005 she was duly recognised for her achievements and was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to conservation and the environment through management of the environmental, heritage and economic sustainability issues affecting the Great Barrier Reef, and for service to the New South Wales Parliament, particularly in the areas of child welfare and education. Virginia will be remembered particularly for her passion and dedication to the Liberal Party, her commitment to her community and her determination to make New South Wales and Australia a better place for all. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12813
In the other place, the now President of the NRMA, a National Party member of Parliament, Wendy Machin, was the first woman National Party member ever elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, in 1985. She was the first woman elected Deputy-Speaker and Chair of Committees in 1989. Upon the election of the O'Farrell Government in March last year, the Hon. Shelley Hancock became the first woman in history to be elected as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly—and much praise goes to Premier Barry O'Farrell for making an excellent people's choice.
Similarly, at the Federal level, as the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones has pointed out, major milestones for women have been achieved by the Coalition. The first woman popularly elected as a Senator for New South Wales was a Liberal, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop. Bronwyn was the first woman to be elected President of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party in 1985 and was the first Liberal woman from New South Wales to go from the Senate to the House of Representatives. The Hon. Kathy Sullivan, who was elected as a Liberal Senator from 1974 to 1984 and then a Liberal member of the House of Representatives from 1984 to 2001, upon her retirement outstripped the record of Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney as the longest-serving female in the Australian Parliament. The Hon. Kathy Sullivan was also the first woman in history to have served in both Houses of the Australian Parliament.
I am proud of the achievements of the many women of the Liberal and National parties in this State and federally who have been trailblazers and who have been the first women to make it to high office. They have paved the way for so many others to follow. Indeed we must lift our game substantially to do even better in the future. These women have reached those positions due to their ability and on merit, not on quotas. The Liberal Party and The Nationals are very different from the Labor Party. I reiterate that Liberal-Nationals are selected on merit. Our preselection processes are vigorous and effective in obtaining the best representation in our parliaments—people who can represent their communities with pride. I also state for the record that we are very proud of the work we are doing to combat domestic violence, in particular the Coalition Government's fostering many White Ribbon Foundation lunches in Parliament House. We are very proud to host events that foster the prevention of violence against women. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [12.07 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I participate in debate on the motion moved by the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones. I support paragraph 1 (a) and acknowledge paragraph 1 (b). I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. It would be really good if the women in this Parliament adopted a bipartisan approach when speaking about the contribution of women and the need for women to be equally represented in our parliaments. For that reason the amendment moved by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis is to be commended and I will support it. I take issue with paragraph 2 of the motion and believe it will be a matter of contention during the debate, particularly on the part of my Labor colleagues, but also generally on the part of anyone who closely examines the issue.
The logical conclusion of the argument advanced in paragraph 2 of the motion is that the reason women are not equally represented in Parliament across our nation is because there are not women of merit in equal numbers to serve in parliaments and represent our respective parties. This ignores the historical, social, economic and cultural barriers that existed and continue to exist that have prevented and continue to prevent women serving in our parliaments in numbers proportionate to our population. It is worth remembering that is in excess of 50 per cent. None of our parliaments in this nation truly reflect the proportion of women in their various populations. A couple of local councils come close and I think a couple exceed that level, but very few.
I will concentrate on paragraph 1 of the motion and look at that history. I add my comments to celebrate the important occasion of the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and stand as candidates in elections for the Australian Federal Parliament. As I indicated, I congratulate all the women listed in this motion on their achievements, irrespective of the political party they represented. I completely support their right to be there. I salute them, together with the Australian Labor Party women who prepared the path that is still being cleared for other women such as me and many of our daughters, I hope, to follow. I congratulate them on getting elected to Parliament and then so ably representing their communities.
However, in doing so I need to correct the motion of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones by outlining that the Labor Party has led the way in providing opportunities for Australian women to participate in public life. I will outline the extensive list of firsts for Labor women in this country. History shows that Australian women won the right to vote and to stand for Federal Parliament in 1902 but, unfortunately, it took another 41 years before the first women took their seats. The story was the same for our six State parliaments. The two Territory parliaments established much later are interesting exceptions. The right to vote was only the first step in 1902 and this included the right to stand for Parliament, but only for Federal Parliament. By 1955 only 22 women had served as members of Australian parliaments. In 2008 Australian had more than 200 women parliamentarians. Unfortunately, women are still a minority in Australia's parliamentary representatives. 12814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
When Dorothy Tangney, a Labor woman, and Enid Lyons entered Parliament House in Canberra on 24 September 1943 they also stepped into history as the first women in the Australian Parliament. It should also be noted that Enid Lyons first stood as a Labor candidate in the 1925 Tasmanian elections. Enid Lyons had constant battles and was told by Robert Menzies that she should not make speeches but instead should stay at home in the kitchen. Still she persisted in spite of the opposition she encountered. She regarded Robert Menzies as "the enemy within the gates".
Ironically, some years later Earle Page, the leader of the Country Party, suggested to Dame Enid Lyons that if she walked away from Menzies and the United Australia Party to form a separate party the Country Party would follow her. Enid was cautious and inquired from the politicians how she would fare as Leader of the Opposition in the place of Menzies. They told her, "You wouldn't have to do a thing. We"—that is the men— "would do all the work. You would only be a figurehead." Not surprisingly, even though it would have defeated Robert Menzies, she indignantly rejected what she now realised was a patronising offer. Dame Enid Lyons was her own person and would not be a puppet leader for anyone, including, as it seems, the Liberal Party.
Dorothy Tangney, Australia's first woman Senator and a strong Labor woman, held a Western Australian seat in the Senate from 1943 until 1968, at that time a record of 25 years and nine months. Dorothy Tangney's election to the Senate in 1943 was the culmination of her dogged determination. Her first speech in the Senate that same day began with a concise declaration of her expectations:
I realise the great honour which has been done to me in affording me the opportunity to move this Address-in-Reply. I also realise my great honour in being the first woman to be elected to the Senate. But it is not as a woman that I have been elected to this chamber. It is as a citizen of the Commonwealth; and I take my place here with the full privileges and rights of all honourable senators.
She was a hardworking parliamentarian, serving on many committees involving her wide interests, including from 1943 to 1946 on the Joint Committee on Social Security. In her long career as a senator Dorothy Tangney built up a sound reputation as a tireless advocate for health and welfare and she was a champion of women's rights. She supported welfare benefits such as child endowment, invalid pensions, and hospital and pharmaceutical benefits. She also supported the nationalisation of Australian Airlines, the establishment of the Australian National University and, not surprisingly, equal pay for equal work. During her time in the Senate she was the only Labor woman. Her hard work and her performance were consistent: in opposition she asked many questions on a wide range of topics, and spoke on almost every budget brought before the Parliament. Between 1962 and 1963 and again between 1965 and 1968 she was temporary chairman of committees, the first woman to preside over either House of Parliament.
As this motion outlines, the vote for women in Federal elections came in 1902, making Australia the second nation in the world to achieve this. On the third attempt the Women's Franchise Act was finally passed in New South Wales. The event was greeted with understandable joy by the Suffrage League but was to be only the beginning of a long journey, still underway, towards full social equality. In Australia the fight for women's suffrage was never characterised by the level of militancy of the British suffragette campaigns, perhaps because there was less resistance to the idea here. Women could still not stand for the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales until 1918 and admittance to the Legislative Council was not possible until 1926. Premier Storey attempted to appoint Kate Dwyer, a pioneer social reformer and labour organiser, to the Legislative Council in 1921 but the appointment was ruled out of order. It would be another 10 years in New South Wales before Labor succeeded in appointing a woman.
he trifecta of women winning the vote, then winning the right to sit, then winning a seat has been described as an extended endurance test—especially so in one State Parliament where it took an astonishing 64 years. Which State? South Australia, the first State to grant women the vote in 1894. There were many barriers, even when the right to stand was won. South Australian women successfully fought in the Supreme Court to prove that "she" was a "person" so that she could stand for a parliamentary seat. When? In 1959—as I have previously said, 64 years after South Australian suffragists had won the right to vote and to stand for Parliament.
Closer to home, in New South Wales Labor continued to promote women. I will list some of those Labor firsts: Catherine Green took her seat in the Legislative Council of New South Wales on 24 November 1931, followed two days later by Ellen Webster. Both women had been nominated by Labor Premier Jack Lang and were formally appointed by Governor Sir Philip Game on 23 November 1931. Lillian Fowler, from the Australian Labor Party, was the first female alderman for Newtown Municipal Council in New South Wales and the first female mayor in all of Australia. In 1939 the Australian Labor Party elected Mary Quirk to the other place and she was endorsed for a safe seat. She held the seat through three more elections. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12815
I note that the first Liberal woman was not elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly until 1973, some 34 years later. That same year, 1973, when the Liberals were electing their first woman to the other place, Edna Roper, a member of the Australian Labor Party, became deputy leader in this place. In 1984 Janice Crosio, a member of the Australian Labor Party, became the first woman Minister in New South Wales. She was appointed to the portfolio of Natural Resources. Joan Child, a Labor woman from Victoria, became the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, in 1986. Jenny Macklin was elected in 2002 as Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, the first woman to hold such a position in either of the two major parties at the Federal level.
Ruby Hutchison—known as Red Ruby—was the first woman member of the Legislative Council of Western Australia. In her 17 years as an Australian Labor Party member of the Legislative Council Ruby Hutchison pursued issues including the right of women to serve on juries, child welfare, education, housing and consumer protection. Her advocacy and research into consumer protection in the United States of America and the United Kingdom was instrumental in the founding of the Australian Consumers Association, formed in 1959 after she addressed a public meeting in Sydney Town Hall. Dame Roma Flinders Mitchell, an Australian lawyer, was the first woman appointed judge to an Australian superior court and first woman State Governor appointed by a South Australian Labor Government. Roma Mitchell was the first Australian woman to be a judge, a Queen's Counsel, a chancellor of an Australian university and the Governor of an Australian State.
Leneen Forde was Governor of Queensland from 1992 until 1997 and appointed by the Wayne Goss Labor Government. She was the second woman to be appointed as Governor of an Australian State and the first to take on the role in Queensland. Professor Marie Bashir, AC, CVO, is the present Governor of New South Wales—the first New South Wales woman appointed to that position by Bob Carr in 2001. Since 2007 she also has been the Chancellor of the University of Sydney. In 1989 Rosemary Follett from the Australian Labor Party became the first woman to head a State or Territory Government—the Australian Capital Territory. In 2001 Clare Martin became the first Australian Labor Party and first female Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. With the exception of South Australia, every State of Australia has had a female Labor Premier, all of who have represented the Australian Labor Party.
Carmen Lawrence, a member of the Labor Party, became the first female Premier of Western Australia in 1990; Joan Kirner, a member of the Labor Party, became the first female Premier of Victoria in the same year. Anna Bligh, a member of the Labor Party, was Queensland Premier from 2007 to 2012—the first woman elected in her own right as a State Premier in Australia. Kristina Keneally, a member of the Labor Party, became the first female Premier of New South Wales, from 2009 to 2011. In 2011 Lara Giddings, a member of the Labor Party, was unanimously elected the new leader of the party and thus the new Premier of Tasmania. In April 1974 Mary Genevieve Gaudron was appointed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as Deputy President, becoming the youngest ever Federal judge. She was appointed by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and in February 1987 she was appointed by a Labor Government as the first female High Court Judge.
Elizabeth Andreas Evatt, AC, an eminent Australian reformist lawyer and jurist who sat on numerous national and international tribunals and commissions, was the first female Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia and the first female judge of an Australian Federal Court, appointed by a Labor Government. She also was the first Australian to be elected to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Of course, Julia Gillard, a member of the Labor Party, is the twenty-seventh and current Prime Minister of Australia. She has held that office since 24 June 2010. She is the first woman Prime Minister in Australia. Quentin Bryce, AC, CVO is the twenty-fifth and current Governor-General of Australia—the first woman to hold the position—and was former Governor of Queensland.
Following the 2011 New South Wales election, sadly, the number of women members has decreased to a point where in this O'Farrell Coalition Government they comprise just 19 per cent of the Government's numbers. In New South Wales the Coalition Government has 22 Ministers, five of who are women, which equates to 22.7 per cent. On the Labor Opposition side, six of the 16 shadow Ministers are women, representing 37.5 per cent of the number. Time will not permit me to continue to outline the achievements of female Labor Party members or illustrate the fact that the Liberal party system has not delivered equality for women. [Time expired.]
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [12.22 p.m.]: I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the motion moved by the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones. Without going into great detail I shall refer to some facts regarding the history of the right for women to vote. As mentioned by previous speakers, in 1894 South Australia became the second jurisdiction in the world to extend the vote to women and the first Australian State to allow women 12816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
to stand for Parliament. This was followed in 1902 when Australia became the first country to give women the right to vote in Federal elections and also the right to be elected. It is interesting to note that in New South Wales several bills for female suffrage were proposed between 1891 and 1901, generally being passed in the lower House but defeated in the upper House. Things might be different if those bills were before us today.
One interesting piece of trivia I discovered during my research was that in 1891 a group of Victorian suffragettes, including Vida Goldstein, gathered 30,000 women's signatures and presented them as a petition to the Parliament. This petition has become one of Victoria's archival treasures. It is known as the monster petition because it is 260 metres long and takes three people three hours to unroll it from one spool to another. Clearly, back then there was much support for the right of women to vote.
I refer now to paragraph 1(b) of the motion regarding electoral milestones for women in the Coalition. I am pleased to report that as a Nationals parliamentarian my party also has a proud history regarding its female members. In 1959 a Women's Conference was formed within the Nationals Federal Council, largely due to the initiative of John "Black Jack" McEwen. This conference later became known as the Women's Federal Council, which continues to be a dynamic and relevant body in our Federal organisation. The achievements of the Women's Federal Council of The Nationals are numerous and time does not permit me to mention all the wonderful things it has done.
However, I shall touch on one achievement: a study carried out into domestic violence in 1989 and 1990. This study by our Women's Federal Council resulted in The Nationals being the first party to recognise and have a policy written into its party platform on the issue of domestic violence—a commendable achievement of our women's council. The Nationals have had many distinguished female members—a few were mentioned earlier by the Hon. Marie Ficarra. Our first female member elected to the Australian Parliament was Country Party Senator Agnes Robertson from Western Australia in 1955. Our first woman elected to the House of Representatives was De-Anne Kelly, who was the member for Dawson. The party also has had some great former female members in Kay Hull, who was a dynamic former member for Riverina and continues to be a great force in our party, along with our State colleague Wendy Machin, who was the first female Nationals member elected to this Parliament and who also served as a Minister.
At the moment The Nationals have some great women in the Federal arena in Senator Fiona Nash and Senator Bridget McKenzie, who both do a wonderful job and certainly are a great inspiration to many young women in Parliament, including me. From an organisation point of view, The Nationals were proud to elect Shirley McKerrow in 1981 as the first woman Federal President of any Australian political party. Helen Dickie also served in that role, and a variety of past State presidents across the country were women. Our current New South Wales President is Christine Ferguson, who is doing a wonderful job along with our Senior Vice Chair, Emma Watts.
When it comes to female members, the New South Wales Nationals are going exceptionally well. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner mentioned in her adjournment speech last night that the New South Wales branch recently formed a women's council. I am proud to have been part of the group that instigated that council. It is a great sign that The Nationals as a party is doing everything it can to support and encourage greater participation of women in all facets of its organisation.
I am proud to be a female Nationals member of Parliament, but I acknowledge that we could do better to get more female representation. However, I am confident that in the years to come we will see more females Nationals members of Parliament at State and Federal levels. I shall conclude on an aspect that has caused angst on both sides of the Chamber with respect to the political aspects of the motion and the amendment moved by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. I do not want to engage in that debate, nor do I want to get into the issue of quotas because I believe that preselection processes are matters for individual parties. One thing we could all agree on, particularly as women in this place, is that we have a responsibility to do the best job we can as female members of Parliament and remind young women how lucky we are to be here, to have the vote and the right to stand for election.
In the scheme of things, 110 years is not really that long ago. We must ensure that as members of Parliament we do not forget how hard so many women fought for this right. We should never take it for granted. One of the best things I do in this role is talk to many school groups. I particularly enjoy talking to young female leaders. I try to remind them of how lucky we are to have the vote and to be able to stand as members of Parliament, and I encourage them to participate in our democracy. I hope all members keep this in mind as we debate this motion and do what they can to promote the idea of more women in our parliaments. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12817
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.27 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones is excellent and has my full and unreserved support. I congratulate her on moving it today. Actually, this motion should have been debated and voted on a few weeks ago.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Why is that?
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: You ask the reason for that?
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Yes, we want to know.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: The reason is that it was bumped aside to allow a motion of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann dealing with same sex marriage—
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The member is reflecting on a decision of the House. In fact, the member agreed with the decision to postpone the motion about which he speaks. He should not refer to it in his speech on the motion before the House.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I ask the member to speak to the motion before the House.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: Yes. Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Deputy-President, but I think I am permitted to refer to the fact that the Hon. Cate Faehrmann brought on her motion because it went to the issue of the importance that The Greens put on—
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The member is now flouting the ruling on the previous point of order. The decision of the House and the member was to postpone the motion. The standing orders then allow the next motion in the Order of Precedence to be moved. The member should not reflect on decisions of the House.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! The member will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: Am I permitted to say that had the motion of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones been dealt with in the normal order of priority it would have been debated and voted upon?
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I ask you to call the member to order. He is flouting your ruling.
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: To the point of order: The Hon. David Clarke is making the observation that we should have been debating this a long time ago. It is an important motion. That is the point he is going to. Unfortunately, other members in this place do not put the same importance on female representation.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I understand the member was seeking clarification. I will not call the member to order on this occasion. However, the member will speak to the motion or he will be placed on a call to order.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: Am I permitted to say this, Madam Deputy President: The Greens view anything they bring forward as pivotal in world history, a landmark event that needs to be dealt with straight away, immediately, without delay, and should be put at the head of the queue? At last the motion of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones is before the House. I congratulate the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones on her patience and courtesy. I suspect the member has shown more patience and courtesy than would have been shown by The Greens had the positions been reversed.
The occasion of the 110th anniversary of the right of women to vote and stand as candidates in elections for the Australian Federal Parliament is one that gives this House the opportunity to reflect upon the status of women in the community and their record of outstanding achievement. It is also an occasion for the Liberal and National parties, as part of that political spectrum that represents the real Australia, mainstream Australia and the political heart and soul of Australia, to reflect with pride on the outstanding women on our side of politics who have served with distinction in the public life of our nation. 12818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
Those few who are named in this fine motion before us are a small sample of a long and ever- expanding list of illustrious women who shine in the annals of our nation's history. The Coalition exults in their contribution to Australia. Let us remember and be clear that the women on the Coalition side of politics have worked, achieved and excelled because of their own abilities, talents and hard work. They have served and they serve now not because they were coddled, propelled or given a free pass resulting from a politically correct affirmative action quota or decree put out by the Labor Party. Affirmative action quotas demean, insult and belittle women. The women in the Coalition are there because of their own honest efforts, not because of a quota system.
That is the difference between the Coalition parties and left-wing parties. The Liberals and The Nationals are parties of initiative and freedom. The left-wing parties represent those who kill initiative and suck away our freedoms. The motion before the House calls on the Labor Party to introduce equality to ensure that women are selected on merit and not on a quota system or policies of affirmative action. I wish the Labor Party would agree to that proposal, because it would be uplifting to women if they did so. It would be good for our nation.
Will the Labor Party do so? Of course it will not do so. It is a party dragged down by the dictates of political correctness. It is swimming around in the sludge of outdated ideologies. It only knows how to kill initiative, not encourage it. It knows no other way. That is why it has become a feeble, exhausted and dying party. That is why it is incapable of giving any leadership to this country. It failed in New South Wales and it is failing Australia. The people of Australia can hardly wait for the day they can vote the Labor Party out of office. That day is coming. That day is getting closer and that day will soon be here.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE AMENDMENT (ILLEGAL FORESTRY OPERATIONS) BILL 2012
Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Luke Foley.
Second Reading
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [12.36 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am proud to introduce the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Illegal Forestry Operations) Bill 2012, which amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to substantially increase the penalties for illegal forestry operations. Australia's forests, and the animals that live in them, have always been a source of pride and inspiration to Australians. When Europeans first came to our shores they were beguiled by and sometimes frightened of the bush. Eucalypts, cycads, wattles and waratahs greeted the new settlers and became the backdrop to their lives. The colonial wonder and amazement were palpable. In 1791 the colony sent two kangaroos as exotic gifts to the King and a dingo to the Under Secretary of State.
The art of John Lewin—an exhibition of which closed just this week at the Mitchell Library—further illuminated the colonial fascination with our forests. In the first years of the 1800s Lewin painted Gymea lilies and waratahs, tawny frogmouths and eastern rosellas. In 1803 Governor King despatched him to record the first koala sighted by white people. His stilted efforts at capturing the koala and the distinctive eucalypt reveal how foreign the forest and its animals seemed to European eyes. Struggling against and subduing this wild landscape became the task of white settlement. By the late nineteenth century a nationalist pride in our forest heritage was awakening.
In the lead-up to Melbourne's international expo in 1888 a competition was held to measure the tallest tree, with Australia hoping to find a Eucalyptus regnans taller than the tallest redwoods of the United States. Although the contest to claim ownership of the world's tallest tree was never settled—Australia's tallest eucalypts were cut down before they were properly measured—the nationalist pride that was piqued by the competition with the Americas opened the minds of Australians to the majesty of their forest heritage. By the turn of the century some visionaries were starting to worry about the rate of forest destruction occurring in the new federation. Arthur Streeton was one of those visionaries. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12819
The famous Heidelberg painter, who played such a role in helping us see and embrace the Australian landscape, as well as celebrating the work of pioneers in carving out an economic future on this challenging land of ours, was a strident activist rallying against the destruction of our forests. While clearly proud of all that the settlers had done, he wanted some balance. He deplored Australia's failure to develop what he called a forest conscience, and he painted images bluntly named, such as The Vanishing Forest. In 1940 Streeton exhibited his most openly critical painting, Sylvan Dam and Donna Buang, AD 2000, which, as art critic Tim Bonyhady wrote, "conveys Streeton's nightmare vision of a wasted Australia, bleached, eroded and lifeless, as a result of the clearing of the forests."
The importance of our forests and their animals in the nation's culture is elegantly seen in our favourite children's books May Gibbs's Gumnut Babies, first published in 1916, and Dorothy Wall's Blinky Bill, published in 1939. Both remain staples in the childhood of so many Australians. This history puts forests at the centre of Australia's identity—our sense of place, our sense of wonder at living on this most marvellous of continents. And it was from this history that the modern forest campaigns were born, with New South Wales leading the nascent movement. In 1979 locals of Terania Creek, on the State's North Coast, held protests to protect rainforest gullies slated for logging and forced a radical rethink of the open slather policies of forest use. In 1982 Labor Premier Neville Wran protected 90,000 hectares of the rainforests of New South Wales. This was a brave and historic new approach and reflected the changing attitudes in the community towards preservation of the State's most impressive forests.
But still the community concern grew. In 1989 and 1990 the forest protests on the New South Wales South Coast dwarfed even the Franklin River blockade, continuing over 18 months with 1,300 arrests. In 1995 Bob Carr became Premier of New South Wales, aided by community sentiment for forest protection and Labor's promise to deliver a world-class national parks system and strong forest management—which is exactly what he did. Labor reformed the timber industry in New South Wales. Labor showed that it is not a crude choice between jobs and the environment but that a progressive society can create growing prosperity while protecting working people and the environment. Labor provided generous transition arrangements; and where the industry continued it was given certainty and resource security.
Labor created the best-forested national parks system in Australia, protecting for perpetuity the most ecologically important forests. Over 16 years Labor added three million hectares to the State's terrestrial reserve system, much of this on former State forest land. Iconic places such as Chaelundi and Jilliby in the north and Deua in the South East Forest National Park are now protected forever. But this was only half the equation. For the State forests left open to logging Labor designed a comprehensive set of laws and prescriptions designed to ensure that logging did not decimate the ecological fabric of the forests; instead, leaving the building blocks of forest diversity and recovery, ensuring waterways were kept clean and animals were not robbed of their homes entirely. The integrated forest operations approvals [IFOAs] are the detailed documents which outline forest prescriptions and the licences granted to forestry operations. Perhaps most significant are those relating to threatened species.
One of the challenges with the logging of native forests is that animals require a mix of different-aged trees. A clear-fell destroys the forest as a home for animals as the trees that grow back are all the same age, creating a biological desert. Many animals specifically require big, old trees. It is only after a tree is mature that it starts to drop branches and create the hollows that many animals rely on. Gliders, birds and bats require these cosy hideouts to survive. Hollows have been called the apartment blocks of the forest, and many species of fauna in Australia are hollow dependent. Labor's rules require a set number of old trees, called habitat trees, to remain in a logged area. This is one example of the many sensible prescriptions which govern logging in State forests in New South Wales.
Furthermore, under integrated forest operation approvals, pre-logging fauna surveys are to be undertaken by fully qualified experts and particular prescriptions have to be followed if threatened species are found to be present. Specific numbers of hollow-bearing and recruitment habitat trees must be clearly marked, protected and retained. Feed trees, nests, roosts and den sites are identified, marked and protected. Buffer zones must be established and clearly delineated. And dedicated staff must be on hand to ensure there are no animals in harm's way.
In reality, though, things are very different today. Audits of logging operations that have been undertaken by environmentalists on the north and south coasts over the past two to three years allege the systematic breaching of virtually every threatened species prescription. In March this year I visited the Styx River State Forest, east of Armidale. The area is prime habitat for the rufous scrub-bird, a small, secretive, understorey bird that lives in the highland wet forests of north-east New South Wales. It is a living fossil, with a lineage dating back over 65 million years, to the age of the dinosaurs. 12820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
It is now listed as vulnerable to extinction on the New South Wales schedule of threatened species. Burning and logging are recognised as primary threats to its survival. Locals became concerned when they visited the Styx River State Forest and found it had been burned and was being logged. The area is modelled as rufous scrub-bird habitat in the integrated forestry operations approval. Further, in 2007 a Forests NSW ecologist saw rufous scrub-birds at seven locations in compartment 502 of Styx River State Forest. Forests NSW identified these records as extremely reliable, and they were included in the New South Wales wildlife atlas.
When locals complained about the logging occurring in the habitat of the rufous scrub-bird Forests NSW explained it had deleted the records from the New South Wales wildlife atlas without consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage. Our threatened species need better care than this, both from Forests NSW and from the Office of Environment and Heritage. Our threatened species deserve that there be consequences for reckless mistakes such as this one. Last year I was first alerted to the seriousness of the problem. The then Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water had prosecuted Forests NSW for contravening its threatened species licence by undertaking a bushfire hazard reduction burn in a smoky mouse exclusion zone in Nullica State Forest, in southern New South Wales.
The smoky mouse is a furry little rodent that is in deep trouble. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has it on its international red list for endangered species and notes that fewer than 2,500 are left in the wild: the population of the smoky mouse, which was once common across eastern Australia, continues to decline. We are in real danger of losing this creature. Forests NSW was found guilty in the case I referred to earlier, but the penalty was a fine of merely $5,600. However, it was the judge's comments that struck me. Justice Pepper wrote in her judgement in June 2011 with respect to Forests NSW:
[The number of convictions] suggests either a pattern of continuing disobedience in respect of environmental laws generally or, at the very least, a cavalier attitude to compliance with such laws.
Her Honour also wrote:
Given the number of offences the Forestry Commission has been convicted of and in light of the additional enforcement notices issued against it, I find that the Forestry Commission's conduct does manifest a reckless attitude towards compliance with its environmental obligations.
The penalty is exceedingly low compared to penalties for other environmental offences, particularly given the seriousness with which the community has come to view environmental offences. However, any increase in the penalty is a matter for Parliament.
That is what this bill is about. In New South Wales if a corporation pollutes a waterway it is liable to a $1 million fine and $120,000 for each day the offence continues. If an individual illegally clears bush on their own property they are liable to a $1 million fine. If you contravene the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act you are liable to a $1.1 million fine and $110,000 for each day the offence continues. If you hurt a threatened species in any context—apart from Forestry—the maximum fine is $220,000 and/or two years imprisonment. However, if you take the life of a smoky mouse or a long-footed potoroo by contravening the threatened species licence under an integrated forestry operations approval the maximum penalty is a paltry $22,000.
This inequity in the respective penalties for breaches of environmental laws is ludicrous. Forests NSW is failing the people of New South Wales in its obligation to manage the forests. The lack of any real incentive to stick to the rules is one important part of this problem. That is why this bill increases the penalties for breaching the provisions of an integrated forestry operations approval tenfold. The bill amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to create a new offence that involves contravening a provision of that Act or the regulations in the course of carrying out forestry operations. The new offence under the Act will attract a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units—that is $220,000—or imprisonment for two years, or both, which is in most cases substantially higher than the existing penalties for contravening a provision of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 or the regulations.
The bill also increases the penalties applying to the offence under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 of contravening any condition or restriction attached to a licence or certificate issued under part 6, licensing, of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The maximum penalties applying to the offence will be increased in the case of an individual from 100 penalty units—that is $11,000—and 10 penalty units for each day the offence continues to 1,000 penalty units and 100 penalty units respectively, and in the case of a corporation from 200 penalty units and 20 penalty units for each day the offence continues to 2,000 penalty units and 200 penalty units respectively. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12821
Section 8A of the Forestry Act 1916 defines the objects of the Forestry Commission. In essence, it is charged with three key objects: to deliver timber, to provide for recreation and to care for the resource it manages. This third object specifically requires the Forestry Commission to "conserve birds and animals" in our State forests. It is time for Forests NSW to fulfil its legal obligations. It is time for the Office of Environment and Heritage to fulfil its obligation to ensure that the rules are obeyed and to prosecute when they are not. It is time for the Parliament to step up and call a halt to illegal forestry without real consequences.
Earlier this year I visited Boambee State Forest, just outside Coffs Harbour. Boambee is home to one of the last koala populations on the coast. I was shown a litany of prescription breaches including, perhaps most startlingly, the intensity of logging. There are prescriptions which govern the volume of the forests that can be logged, called the basal area. Logging is meant to be limited to 30 to 40 per cent of the basal area of the forest. I can attest that the volumes logged were much greater than that. Further, trees that were meant to be retained as habitat and feed trees for koalas were logged. Our koalas deserve better than this. It was in reference to the logging of Boambee State Forest that environment Minister Robyn Parker said last year in budget estimates that "logging protects koalas".
The koala is becoming an emblem of what is at stake here. Quite a bit of attention has been directed towards the koala of late. When those first white folk landed in Sydney Cove an estimated 10 million koalas lived in Australia. The current New South Wales koala population is estimated to be around only 10,000. That is a tragedy. The current scale of illegal logging is one of the key threats to this Australian icon. The bill addresses this problem by creating appropriate penalties for environmental crimes in our forests. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
[Deputy-President (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, a report entitled "Investigation into the payment of $4,500 to a councillor of Auburn City Council", dated June 2012 and authorised to be made public this day.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the public gallery His Grace Bishop Robert Rabbatt, Bishop of the Melkite Catholic Eparch Community of Australia and New Zealand, guest of the Hon. John Ajaka. Welcome, Your Grace. I hope you enjoy your visit to the Legislative Council and the New South Wales Parliament.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
STATE RECORDS AUTHORITY CITY READING ROOM
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services. Why is the State Records Authority's city reading room being closed at the end of this month, given the severe impact that this will have on the ability of historians and academics to engage in important historical research, including vital research into New South Wales's history?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am impressed that the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that matter. I must say it is of some distress and concern to the Premier and to me that that decision has been made, but since 2004 members of the public have travelled to Kingswood to access original records and the State Records Authority's central business district reading room has provided access to copied material only. In response to the 12822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
closure, State Records proposes to distribute copied material to appropriate bodies in the central business district and to regional centres. The State Library has agreed to accept a range of the most heavily used microfilms. State Records will transfer this material to the State Library in early July. State Records is also exploring options to undertake more digitising of the State's archive to provide the public with online access to its collection. State Records current budget for 2011-12 includes $1.8 million as a project grant towards a whole-of-government digital archiving solution. A further $1.2 million for the digital archiving project will be forthcoming in the authority's 2012-13 budget.
The background to this matter is that State Records spends approximately $500,000 a year on rent, cleaning, electricity and other charges for its accommodation in The Rocks. The accommodation includes office space for 15 staff, a boardroom, training rooms, public research rooms and an exhibition area. New budget restrictions mean that State Records needs to make additional cuts of $1.43 million over four years above the expected savings. State Records' annual recurrent grant from the Department of Finance and Services is approximately $4.9 million. Withdrawal of services in the central business district was considered to be the best option to achieve savings.
RURAL AND REGIONAL ROADS
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will he update the House on rural and regional roads in New South Wales?
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: What about remote?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: And remote. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government made it very clear upon being elected that rural and regional New South Wales would be a priority. Those areas were forgotten by a lacklustre Labor Government that focused more on helping its Sussex Street mates than on helping people in rural communities such as Dubbo, the Murray-Darling and Wagga Wagga. I am pleased to report that the 2012-13 State budget contains $3.8 billion—that is billion with a "b"—for New South Wales regional and rural road networks.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: How much of that is Federal money? Be honest.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If I were the Hon. Penny Sharpe I would be a little careful. Yesterday she got herself into a lot of trouble by trying to take money out of the few remaining Labor electorates in Sydney. Unlike the Opposition, which includes the Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Government is committed to delivering the right infrastructure that is needed to enable communities to grow regional economies and improve road safety. An investment of $1.9 billion will be made in critical highways. That includes $941 million for the Pacific Highway, $530 million to continue work on the Hunter Expressway, $187 million for the Princes Highway, $151 million on the Hume Highway, and $134 million for the Great Western Highway. This is a substantial investment in vital road links that help support growth in rural and regional communities.
Earlier this year rural and regional areas of New South Wales were hit hard by natural disasters, which is why the budget provides an additional $ million to assist with continuing repairs to damaged roads and bridges. As part of delivering on yet more election commitments under the previously announced $200 million commitment to tackle congestion and safety on key routes, the Government is providing $1 million this year for Bathurst roads upgrades, $1.5 million for the Cargo Road bridge upgrade, $4 million this year for overtaking lanes on the Newell Highway as part of a $10 million commitment, $700,000 this year for the Narromine to Tullamore road upgrade, $150,000 for the Ballimore turning lane that is delivering on our commitment to the electorate of Dubbo, $940,000 this year for the Forbes turning lane, $700,000 this year for the Troy Junction rail crossing as part of a $3 million commitment, $1.4 million this year towards the Queanbeyan Road upgrade as part of a $4 million commitment, and $4 million this year for overtaking lanes on the Monaro Highway as part of a $6 million commitment.
There are also a number of new initiatives, such as $2 million for sealing the Silver City Highway near Packsaddle and $1 million for sealing dangerous sections of the Cobb Highway. There is funding to accelerate sealing of Main Road 248 and sealing of Grabine Road. Not one Opposition member knows where Grabine Road and Main Road 248 are. The Hon. Robert Brown would know, but not one Opposition member would know where Main Road 248 is. [Time expired.] 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12823
ROAD SAFETY
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that the Minister promised in the lead-up to the budget that all speeding fines would be hypothecated for road safety programs, can he explain why his budget press release, which is dated 12 June, states that $270 million will be spent on road safety, yet the budget papers state that $424 million will be collected from fines?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question, but it is a pity that his question misleads the House. I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that the speed camera revenue would be going into road safety programs. Does he want to make up something and use that as the premise of a question? I suspect he may not have written that question. Can you go back to the people who write your questions and tell them to ensure that when they give you—especially you, an honourable man—a question to ask me that the basis of the question is correct? That was just dead wrong.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister is debating the question and also addressing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition across the table rather than through the Chair.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That being the case, I think I can add to the answer. On top of the hypocrisy of the question there is hypocrisy in the fact that in the last budget of the former Government the Hon. Eric Roozendaal and the Hon. Kristina Keneally forecast that fines revenue in 2012-13 would be $509 million, which is $85 million more than we are currently getting. They also forecast that they were going to have 12,500 hours of mobile speed cameras. We cut that down to 7,000 hours. We are being honest. It is hypocritical of them to allow a decent man like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to ask a question that is factually incorrect. It is a disgrace to do that to such a nice man.
WASTE AND ENVIRONMENT LEVY
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. Given that next month the carbon tax will be introduced, leading to increased rubbish tip fees—and charities overwhelmed by the cost of illegal rubbish dumping have had to close stores—and that next month Queensland will repeal its waste levy, will the Minister consider repealing the New South Wales waste levy? If not, will consideration be given to introducing further and simpler exemption processes for our charities? When will the current review be completed and reported to this House?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I hope that we will be reporting very soon. I will make sure we report soon because the dreadful Gillard carbon tax will increase the cost of living for many people who are already facing the pressure of rising prices. We only have to look at the Labor-induced electricity charges and the increases in those charges today and yesterday. The New South Wales Government is committed to minimising the increase in the cost of living, particularly for those who can least afford it. In addition to the increased cost of living, the carbon tax will place additional operating costs on the delivery of already heavily subsidised housing in New South Wales as well as all those cost-of-living expenses that the member pointed to. No doubt that is why Kristina Keneally took the opportunity a while ago to dump on Julia Gillard.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: I have two aspects to my point of order. The first is that I believe it is inappropriate to refer to the Prime Minister by her first name. She should be addressed by her title. The second point is relevance. The Minister was asked about fees for waste tips. He has now gone off topic and is not within a bull's roar of the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders require that members of both Houses of this Parliament be referred to by their correct titles. However, they make no reference to members of other parliaments. Therefore, it is not out of order for members to refer to the Prime Minister by name. In respect of the member's second point, I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. It is a little too early for me to determine that he was not being generally relevant.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The question was directly about the carbon tax. Former Labor Premier Kristina Keneally—remember her; attention deprivation if ever you have seen it—was quoted as saying that Julia Gillard, whom she referred to as "Julia Gillard" and not "Prime Minister", should revoke or wind back the 12824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
carbon tax in order to claw back public popularity. Anyone who thinks Julia Gillard is going to claw back public popularity is completely deluded. Ms Keneally is reported as publicly supporting the carbon tax in the lead-up to her failed bid to retain government in New South Wales last year.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance. The Minister is well past the time that ought to be allowed for a preamble. The question went directly to the New South Wales waste levy, and three minutes into his answer the Minister has not begun to address that issue.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all Ministers of the need to be generally relevant in their answers.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Without concluding, Ms Keneally said the PM—she referred to her as the "PM"—needs a game-changing, Hail Mary pass.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Minister has nothing else to say, he will resume his seat.
The Hon. Paul Green: Point of order: The question simply asked for a date, time, year, month or week. When will the Minister come back to the House with the report?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I take it that the member's point of order relates to relevance. While it has some substance, the Minister's time has expired.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate the definition of "soon"? He said that he would be reporting "soon" to the House. What does that mean in terms of a date and time—year, month, day or hour?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Paul Green is one of the members of this House who pays attention and is interested in detail and in accurate answers. I do not know the answer. I will find out for him.
POLICE DEATH AND DISABILITY SCHEME
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister explain the impact of the Government's proposed reforms to the workers compensation scheme on police officers' death and disability entitlements?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Members will be aware that the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme tabled its report yesterday. The committee's report has revealed that as at 31 December 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers calculated the scheme had amassed a deficit of over $4 billion. This position was supported by a peer review undertaken by the external actuaries Ernst and Young. The New South Wales Auditor-General, Mr Peter Achterstraat, also confirmed in evidence before the committee that the scheme is not financially sustainable. Further, the committee has reported that the deficit is only getting worse. As at the date of the report, the committee states that the deficit has likely deteriorated by a further $200 million. Clearly, there can be no doubt that reform of the scheme is now absolutely necessary.
I am pleased to note that the committee has provided 28 recommendations setting out a detailed roadmap for reform. I am also pleased to see that the recommendations put a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation of injured workers. As the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I am very familiar with this issue. Members will recall that late last year the Government had to reform the NSW Police Force death and disability insurance scheme in similar circumstances. That scheme alone had been projected to cost a massive $4.4 billion over four years if steps to reform it had not been taken. But worst of all was the fact that the old scheme provided disincentives for rehabilitating our injured police officers. Under the scheme our injured police were dismissed from the force, albeit with a cheque but still suffering injury. This meant that those officers were unlikely to work again.
I am advised that the Police Force is already having success in returning officers to work under the new arrangements, which heavily emphasise rehabilitation and an early return to work. The Government wants to ensure this continues. The new death and disability scheme and all the programs to support the rehabilitation of injured officers are still new, and many of the supporting initiatives are still being trialled. Of course, the new death and disability scheme is very much built upon the structure of the existing workers compensation scheme. For this reason, the Government's intention is to maintain police officers' current workers compensation and death and disability schemes. This commitment includes preserving the entitlement to journey claims. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12825
The Government remains committed to providing the best possible death and disability benefits for police officers within its commitment that the long-term cost to government is approximately 4.6 per cent of salaries. It is noted that income protection levels proposed under the recommended reforms may be higher than those available under death and disability income protection in some circumstances. It is noted also that the premium for the police death and disability insurance policy is to be renegotiated by January 2013. In this light, the Government will be pleased to consult with the Police Association of New South Wales on the death and disability scheme and its relationship to reformed workers compensation. This means that no changes to the death and disability arrangements will be made without due consideration.
CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Transport. Given the Government's stated goal to get this great city moving again and also to double the rate of cycle trips by 2016, what major cycle infrastructure is the Minister aware that the Government is considering funding over the next 12 months.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for her important question. She, quite rightly, is one of the few members who understand the process of government—what is happening and who has responsibility— in this area. She quite properly addressed this question to the Minister for Transport, who has responsibility for cycling and cycle lanes. I indicate on behalf of the Minister that the New South Wales Government strongly supports cycling as an affordable, sensible and healthy transport choice for many short trips. The Government is committed to encouraging the increased use of cycling through good projects based on sound planning and thorough consultation.
As part of our NSW 2021 strategy—a plan to make New South Wales number one—we have a target to more than double the modal share of bicycle trips made in the greater Sydney region at local and district levels by 2016. NSW 2021 also includes commitments to construct a cross-regional cycleway network for greater Sydney and to work with councils to complete local cycleways as part of a truly integrated transport system. In putting these commitments into practice we will take a common-sense approach, providing new cycling infrastructure where it will make the greatest difference to our customers. The people who use our roads and cycleways are customers. The strongest interest in cycling is in areas where the road network—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: How much? When?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If the Hon. Penny Sharpe found out how much, she would want to send it somewhere else. She has a track record; she has form. Therefore, we will take great care in integrating on-street cycleways with other transport modes. The draft New South Wales long-term transport master plan will set out the Government's high-level cycling strategy for New South Wales cities and towns. The cycling strategy will then be detailed in action plans to be developed over coming months. At the heart of these plans will be consultation aimed at finding out what people need to get on a bike and start riding. With the new principles we are matching demand with appropriate infrastructure. Our cycle planning will focus also on effective partnerships with councils as a way of delivering cycle facilities as part of an integrated local transport network.
In 2010-11 Roads and Maritime Services spent a total of $29.58 million under a cycle program and $23.69 million has been allocated to be spent in 2011-12. In the 2012-13 budget New South Wales programs allocated $27.49 million to cycling in the next financial year, of which $8.86 million in 2012-13 will be allocated to match equivalent council expenditure to deliver approximately 100 local cycleway projects in 70 different local government areas across New South Wales and to support local cycling encouragement initiatives, including NSW Bike Week events. Cycling projects delivered or underway in 2011-12 and projects to get underway in 2012-13 include design and development of the Nepean River Green Bridge between Penrith and Emu Plains, a trial school community-based cycling skills and confidence— [Time expired.]
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I ask a supplementary question—I feel like a Coalition member.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Cate, you wish.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Will the Minister elucidate his answer? 12826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am being benevolent; I could give several answers, but I will choose the straight one. Current projects include a trial school community-based cycling skills and confidence training program delivered in western Sydney major centres and regional centres at Port Macquarie, Orange and Lithgow; completion of the M4 regional cycleway between Wentworthville and Parramatta; construction of the Tracker Riley Cycleway connection to Dubbo zoo; a detailed demand-based investigation of the Cooks River and White Bay corridor to develop appropriate solutions to walking and cycling needs parallel to the inner west light rail extension; and, in partnership with the City of Sydney, ongoing technical improvements to the operation of what are described as "innovative bicycle traffic lanes".
Each year more than 90 local cycling infrastructure projects are completed by over 70 councils across the State through funding partnerships with the New South Wales Government. Contracts to study five potential cross-regional cycleways were awarded by Roads and Maritime Services in early 2011. These are Botany Bay international terminal to the Sydney central business district, Sydney central business district to Maroubra, Sydney Harbour Bridge to Woolloomooloo, Liverpool to Campbelltown rail trail, and North Sydney to Manly-Warringah. These studies are ongoing and their results will feed into the current cycle planning by Transport for NSW under our long-term transport master plan.
ROADS FUNDING
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that the budget papers indicate that an additional $45 million in revenue will be collected from fines, why does this week's budget show a $200 million drop in funding for new roads, a $100 million drop in funding for the maintenance of existing roads and a $33 million drop in funding for improvements in the traffic network?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The problem with the now Opposition members, who were Government members, is that they just do not understand finances. That is why they are in trouble. What we have done— they do not like to admit it because, as I have said on numerous occasions in this House, they hate good news— is put in place the biggest budget for roads in New South Wales history as far as the contribution by the State Government. I made sure I used the correct wording because it could easily be confused with last year's record budget. Last year's roads budget was a record budget in total and this year's budget is slightly less in total. But the New South Wales Government's contribution to that total is the greatest ever.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: You have to distinguish this.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I hear those opposite asking: What is the difference? Why have we got less this year than last year? I suspect they know the answer and they do not want to hear it. The fact is that the Federal Government's contribution to New South Wales this year is less than last year. One wonders why those opposite step up day after day and ask me these questions.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Well, you would get a lot more if you matched their funding on the Pacific Highway.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There he is—Super Steve sitting on the losers' lounge.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: I insist that this is not the "losers' lounge" and ask the member not to use that terminology.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Donnelly has taken points of order in this vein before. I refer him to my previous rulings.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Unfortunately, the Opposition has opened the wound again. It is like picking the scab on something that is infected. Opposition members are in denial. Their mate Anthony Albanese, the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, has dudded New South Wales of $2.31 million. Shame on Anthony Albanese, shame on his supporters across the Chamber and shame on the Independent Federal member for Lyne. It is a disgrace. He is a man that does not want to represent New South Wales. What is the answer? The shadow Minister for Transport's solution on how to recoup the money that Anthony Albanese stole from New South Wales is to take it away from western Sydney—that is, remove it from John Robertson's electorate. Sorry Robbo. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12827
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Mr President, you ruled on this issue yesterday. If the Minister wishes to make allegations about where I think funding should go in western Sydney he should do so by way of substantive motion.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You told us.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: It is inappropriate and wrong.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a different matter to the matter I ruled on yesterday. There is no point of order. I remind the member that other forms of the House are available to her should she wish to respond to the Minister's comments.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As if it was not bad enough that first of all we got Anthony Albanese— [Time expired.]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is providing better whole-of-government services?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I can report that almost $1.5 billion will be invested to improve the whole of government, driving down costs for the Government while improving services for the people of New South Wales. The New South Wales Government has embarked on an ambitious reform agenda to streamline services, improve efficiency, increase competitiveness and provide value for money to New South Wales taxpayers. The $1.5 billion investment in 2012-13 will continue this reform across a range of areas including public infrastructure, government procurement, social housing, information and communications technology, industrial relations, fleet and water utilities.
Major investments include $206 million for New South Wales public works to manage the planning, procurement, design and construction of government building and engineering projects; $201 million for land and property information to provide valuation, surveying, mapping and special services; $198 million for the Office of State Revenue to manage collection of revenue and fines, administer benefits and undertake a new targeted debt recovery initiative; $152 million to provide and improve services to government agencies in the areas of procurement, fleet management, information technology, finance, business and shared services; and within my portfolio there is $16 million for the Office of Industrial Relations to develop industrial relations policy, provide information to employers and employees, and to enforce industrial relations laws. In addition the Land and Housing Corporation will invest some $331 million to address the social issues associated with concentrated social housing estates and maintenance of existing assets. This is in addition to the integrated strategy.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Your timing was off.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I was up all night reading the workers compensation report. What a sensational report it is. The delivery of that report is the result of a great effort by all the members of that committee. Those expenditures are in addition to the Government's integrated strategy of infrastructure investment. The Government will invest $561 million of additional funding for infrastructure to boost housing supply; $481 million of infrastructure through the housing acceleration fund, which includes $181 million for the first round, including acceleration of the Camden Valley Way upgrade; and $300 million for future rounds funded from the property asset utilisation task force. The people of New South Wales will see the change as reforms, particularly in information and communication technology, government procurement and industrial relations, begin to take shape.
Regional areas will also benefit through work on local infrastructure projects. The Government will be helping local councils to invest in more than $1 billion of local infrastructure projects through the provision of $30 million of interest subsidies for the local infrastructure renewal scheme. This is further strengthened through the $50 million worth of incentives for local councils through the urban activation precinct policy to build essential infrastructure. Through the reforms the Government will increase opportunities to do business across government and improve services to local communities. I look forward to seeing the results of these excellent initiatives delivered through the Government's second budget. 12828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
MARINE PARKS
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business. Will the Minister inform the House of the economic impact of the recently announced Federal Government and The Greens plan for massive maritime parks around Australia's coastline? How will it affect our large New South Wales commercial fisheries industry? Can the State governments veto this intrusive coastal maritime parks plan?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is a good question, and it is an important question for the people and the resource of fishing reserves in New South Wales. I, like others, saw the Federal Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke, announcing a huge new marine park ringing Australia. My thoughts were, "Here it is, putting out the garbage at the end of the week." That announcement was the first anyone knew about it. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industries received her information on this issue via the television. That is not consultation. This is not about saving the environment; this is about saving the Federal Labor Government. It is typical of the deals that are done by the Federal Government. I know Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would not be surprised.
One of my colleagues was in The Greens office recently. As they walked in the door of The Greens office they looked on the wall and they saw the sign to ban police sniffer dogs. As they went a little further there was an artist's impression of a double-barrelled taser gun, so they knew it was The Greens office. They walked across and there was an open box of rock crystal and a solar powered fridge. In that fridge were chicken entrails. Just behind the fridge in a folder marked "Lee Rhiannon", gathering dust and cobwebs, with black spiders dying as they climbed down the wall, right beside the framed and signed photos from Stalin, Beria, Che Guevara and Castro, was the family history marked with 30 year anniversaries, as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation documents are released. They then know what the family was doing on that particular day via the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation documents.
There was the document marked "State Labor-Greens Coalition". There was a line through that heading and it was replaced with "Federal". "New South Wales Labor" was crossed out and they had replaced it with "Federal Labor-Greens Coalition". There it was—the marine park policy. It is political science. It is not based on environmental science. They then felt that they needed to go to the seaside, so they all hopped in the Prius. There were six of them. There was a new Prius with three rows of seats. They put the senior ones in the front— those that insisted they were the senior ones, Kaye and Shoebridge; then the two sensible members in the middle; and then in the back they put the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham. You can imagine the noise as they went along—not from the Prius, because the Prius is quiet. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham discovered that it was a great way to sneak up behind cyclists; as they sneaked up behind them he would go, "Ahh, ahh, ahh" and scare the hell out of them. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann, who loves cyclists, would go, "Ooh", to warn them. So they are travelling along going, "Ooh, ahh; ooh, ahh; ooh, ahh."
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister elucidate his answer?
The PRESIDENT: I think he is channelling Michael Egan!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It was that effective that Mike Gallagher decided he would use The Greens staff car as a new police rapid pursuit vehicle. As Jeza sneaks up behind the cyclists and goes, "Ahh," and Cate goes, "Ooh," they go, "Ooh, ahh; ooh, ahh." It is an important question, and I will get a detailed answer for the member.
DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET
The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. In light of the Premier's 5 June comments in which he said he would "root out waste and mismanagement" where it occurs and the decision to cut 15,000 jobs, why did the Government issue a $20 million tender to Bendelta to provide "executive development" to the staff of the Department of Premier and Cabinet? And why was the advertisement revised this morning to $2 million? Was this due to media inquiries?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I and all other Ministers have been absolutely dedicated to our public service, to improve working conditions, to improve their skills, to give them back some confidence and to thank them for doing the hard work that they do—unlike the former mob, who engaged in nothing but nepotism, blame and lies when it came to the public service. No wonder so many people in the public service are now 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12829
praising us for our approach to the way that the public service operates. They are praising us for the Public Service Commissioner, for the fact that we are focussing on ways in which to make it better and easier for our public servants to deliver the services that the people of New South Wales require. We are focussing on ensuring that the hardworking public servants of New South Wales enjoy their jobs and are provided with the infrastructure and the skills they need to do those jobs so well.
That is why I was so pleased to hear the Minister for Police and Emergency Services acknowledge today that whilst we had to go through a difficult process in relation to the police death and disability scheme it has been a successful and necessary process. Whilst we are also committed to reforming the workers compensation scheme, we are not going to do anything further to disrupt the police because they are now very happy: they are cooperating, they are working with us and making the best of their scheme. The difference is that whereas the mob opposite used to just pay people off to go away, we are looking after the injured police. That is the approach that we have to the public sector, and that is why we are prepared to spend money on improving the public sector.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister explain why the advertisement was revised this morning from $2 million?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not know why an advertisement was revised. To be honest, I expect they would be fairly busy, and I would be surprised if someone from Premier and Cabinet ran up to me and said, "Greg, could you please sign off on this change in this ad?" Imagine what it would be like if that were the case. Was that what Labor Ministers used to do? Someone over there was a Minister.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Yes, Steve Whan.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Is that what you used to do, Steve? Did you sign off on every little ad that was going in the papers?
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order—
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Ah, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal signed off on every ad.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I have two points to my point of order. First, the Minister well knows that he should address all other members of this House by their appropriate title, which he failed to do.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Yes. And what is the next point?
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: My second point, which also is very important, is one of relevance. It is inappropriate for the Minister to start asking questions of members of the House. He is meant to be answering a question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are disorderly at all times. The Minister has concluded his answer.
POLICE TRANSPORT COMMAND
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the $115 million investment in the Police Transport Command?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question. As I have informed the House previously, the NSW Police Force has progressed apace with the establishment of the Police Transport Command. By taking over security for the entire public transport network, with all the powers of police officers, those working in the Transport Command will combine the dual policing roles of detection and prevention. The New South Wales Minister for Transport has supported this transition, as she knows that an increased police presence on the public transport network provides the best deterrent against crime.
The New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione, and Acting Assistant Commissioner Max Mitchell have been working with Transport for NSW, RailCorp, State Transit and Sydney Ferries, as well as the Police Association, to synchronise their objectives and to provide greater coordination of resources. This gives all agencies the ability to execute well-planned, targeted operations to have a significant impact on crime. 12830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
And the Government is supporting all of these activities including, as outlined in the budget and in the member's question, $115 million over four years to support and expand the Police Transport Command. This significant investment is about improving passenger safety and security across the public transport system.
More than 300 officers have already been drawn from local commuter crime units to form the basis of the Police Transport Command. With the investment of $115 million by the Liberal-Nationals Government, the NSW Police Force will be able to forge ahead with filling further uniformed police roles within the command. A total of 610 uniformed officers will make up the Police Transport Command by December 2014. The Minister for Transport previously confirmed that the police officers will be backed up by 150 transit officers who will focus on detecting fare evasion and minor compliance issues. Officers in the Police Transport Command will be based in three primary metropolitan hubs in central, south-west and north-west Sydney and seven satellite hubs, including the Hunter, Central Coast and Illawarra regions. The Police Transport Command will continue to be supported by local area commands, where the Liberal-Nationals Government is also investing resources through additional officers and better allocations.
This Government takes the safety and security of the citizens of New South Wales seriously. We do not take violence and criminal behaviour on the public transport network lightly. We are backing this with $115 million investment over four years—backing this in with a plan to increase authorised strength in both the Police Transport Command and across commands, and backing this in with a plan to use transit officers in the best way possible. As usual, when there is a new, improved response by this Government to an out-of-date hangover from the former Government there is a criticism by those who simply do not want change, like those opposite. We hear them interjecting. They do not want this to happen; they do not want to see an improved level of safety and confidence in our public transport system.
The establishment of a new Police Transport Command will not leave the rail network any less safe while it is taking its final shape. The Police Transport Command will continue to use the resources it currently has to maintain the level of safety and security commuters expect, and its numbers will expand as recruitment to the command grows. I am advised that RailCorp will continue to roster its security staff over the weekends to complement the police already on duty, and because police can use intelligence-based policing they will know when to patrol and where to patrol. We are making sure offenders will be brought to justice, and the new Police Transport Command will be patrolling regularly to prevent incidents and to identify more serious criminals where they can. I again congratulate the Minister for Transport, who is doing an excellent job in making our public transport system one that the public has confidence in.
NEWCASTLE LICENSED VENUES LATE-NIGHT TRADING
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for the Hunter, representing the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing. Has the Government received any approaches from a licensed venue or venues in the Newcastle area or from a representative body of the retail liquor industry relating to any possible changes to the conditions on late- night trading in licensed venues in Newcastle, as created by the section 104 decision in March 2008 of the former Liquor Administration Board? If so, can the Minister provide the House with the details of the representations and any responses that might have been made by the Government?
The Hon. Greg Pearce: That question should be on notice.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As the Minister for Finance and Services indicates, that question should be on notice; there is no doubt about that. But it gives me an opportunity to point out a very important distinction between this side of the House and those opposite, including The Greens. We have been serious about changing the behaviour of people who are out on our streets of a night-time whilst intoxicated. That is why we introduced the offence of intoxicated and disorderly—
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question did not relate to the offence of drunk and disorderly; the question related to whether there had been an approach made to the Government from a licensed venue or venues in the Newcastle area or from a representative body of the retail liquor industry relating to late-night trading conditions on licensed venues in the Newcastle area. If the Minister cannot answer the question, then he cannot answer it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr John Kaye should not make debating points when he is taking a point of order. I remind the Minister of the need to be generally relevant in his answer. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12831
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I indicated, this question should have been on notice. As the question has detail in it, the answer requires detail. I again make the point that The Greens are trying to create an image that somehow the streets in the Hunter are awash with drunks of a night-time and nothing is being done about it.
Dr John Kaye: That's not true.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is true. You are up there all the time, but you do not want to talk about self-responsibility. Every chance I get in this House I talk about what we have done in relation to the responsible consumption of alcohol. The Greens want to talk about the responsible service of alcohol. Sure, that is part of the equation, but they forget the responsible consumption of alcohol part of the debate, which is all about personal responsibility. We have introduced legislation to address the problem in the Hunter and in the rest of New South Wales, and The Greens have not raised that in the question.
STATE BUDGET AND EDUCATION
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Treasurer. Given that the Premier promised more money for schools, hospitals and roads in Tuesday's budget, can the Minister explain to the House why spending on education in real terms has been reduced?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am also the Minister for the Illawarra and we have allocated $552 million for recurrent expenditure on education in the Illawarra—that is more than half a billion dollars just for the Illawarra. That is our response on education.
ILLAWARRA ROADS
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on roads in the Illawarra?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that question. I probably do not need to inform the House that he is the best Parliamentary Secretary I have ever had, but I will anyway. The Illawarra is a vital region and the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is determined to ensure that we provide essential infrastructure to support its continuing growth. That is why more than $164 million will be invested in Illawarra roads as part of the 2012-13 State budget. This represents a $61 million increase, or 60 per cent, on last year's allocation.
Importantly, this year's budget provides funding to allow major work to start on the long-awaited upgrade of the Princes Highway between Gerringong and Bomaderry. That is a project that Labor promised in 2006, but it failed to deliver a single inch of widening works. This year $100 million has been allocated to the Gerringong to Bomaderry upgrade, including $90 million for construction work on widening the Princes Highway to two lanes in each direction between Mount Pleasant and Toolijooa Road at Gerringong, which will improve road safety on this key stretch of road. In addition, $9 million has been allocated to continue planning and preconstruction activities for the Foxground and Berry bypasses, and $1 million has been allocated to continue planning for the upgrade between Berry and Bomaderry.
We are also delivering $28 million to continue construction of the Princes Highway duplication at South Nowra. Work is continuing on the Picton Road safety package, with $11.6 million worth of works in 2012-13, including stage two of the upgrade of the 3.5 kilometre section west of Mount Keira Road. That is despite the Federal Government refusing to match our funding for safety works on this dangerous stretch of road that links the Illawarra and Macarthur regions and where people commute on a daily basis. It is yet another example of the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals getting on with the job and, unlike those opposite, delivering on our election commitments. A further $800,000 has been allocated to continue planning for climbing lanes on Mount Ousley. The New South Wales Government plans to deliver the infrastructure needed to support the growth of Port Kembla.
Across the Illawarra and South Coast regions $187 million in total will be invested on continuing improvements to the Princes Highway. We made it clear at the election that we would deliver unprecedented levels of funding towards major regional links. It is not in my notes, but an important point to make is that the mayor of Shoalhaven, who is a member of this House, has approached me on a number of occasions for funding 12832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
to be delivered so that the local community knows that there is a possible future upgrade of the bridge, whether upstream or downstream. Thanks to the member for Kiama, Gareth Ward, the member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock, and the ever-present pushing from the mayor, we have money in this year's budget. That is certainly good news for the Shoalhaven. I pay tribute to those three members for their work. That is the sort of thing that happens when you have a good mayor and a good local member. In this case there were two local members and the mayor pushing for funding. The other side would not know about that, but that is the sort of thing you do to get funding. [Time expired.]
COAL AND COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Treasurer. In relation to the public benefit test that is being developed by Treasury as part of the Strategic Regional Land Use gateway processes for assessing coal and coal seam gas proposals, when will details of the public benefit test be available for public consultation and comment?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham for the question and I will take it on notice.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I ask a supplementary question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! With the best will in the world, it is difficult to know how a supplementary question would be in order. However, the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham may ask his supplementary question.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Given the Minister's response, will the Minister elucidate in regards to the public benefit test being simply a gigantic loophole—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order—
The Hon. Niall Blair: Point of order—
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: —that will mean major coal and coal seam gas projects on prime agricultural land are allowed to proceed through the gateway?
The PRESIDENT: Order! While that was a good try, the supplementary question is out of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The time for questions has expired on a high note with the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham. Better luck next week. If members have any further questions I suggest they place them on notice.
OFFSET ALPINE PRINTING FIRE
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: On 10 May 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me, representing the Premier and the Attorney General, a question relating to Offset Alpine Printing Ltd. I provide the following response:
As the honourable member is aware, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has already investigated matters in connection with Offset Alpine Printing Pty Limited. On completion of this investigation the commission announced that it would not be asking the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider bringing any proceedings.
Questions without notice concluded.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.
14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12833
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.31 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
NATIONAL PARKS AND TOURISM
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [3.31 p.m.]: I will speak about sustainable tourism in protected areas, that is, national parks. I recently became aware of the World Commission on Protected Areas series of papers on best practice protected area guidelines and found that many of the recommendations fit nicely into our situation in New South Wales. "Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas, Guidelines for Planning and Management" is No. 8 in the series. Its publication was made possible in large part by funding from Cardiff University, the United Nations Environment Program, the World Tourism Organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and Environment Australia.
Interestingly, just last week we had news that tourist visits to Australia's famous national park landmarks are plummeting. Uluru and Kakadu in the Northern Territory are among the worst affected, with visitor numbers at Kakadu down 11 percent this financial year. At Uluru they are down 19 per cent. It is obvious to anyone interested in sustainable conservation that something needs to be done urgently to get people into these protected areas. I hope that in New South Wales we are not suffering a similar fall in visitor numbers, and I hope that the New South Wales Nationals Parks and Wildlife Service can again report this year that we have had more than 30 million visitors to our national parks. Even a 10 per cent drop in visits to national parks in New South Wales would only take us back to 27 million visits—if anyone really believes the figures.
The paper says that the link between protected areas and tourism is as old as the history of protected areas. It also says that protected areas need tourism and tourism needs protected areas. So far I think all members except The Greens will agree with that premise. The underlying aim of these guidelines is to ensure that tourism contributes to the purposes of protected areas and does not undermine them. That is again something that most people will agree on. The paper also points out that the success of the guidelines depends in part on action taken by governments and others in, for example, updating legislation relating to protected areas and tourism and introducing economic incentives to encourage sustainable forms of tourism.
I look forward to the State budget and hope that it contains some incentives to get tourism of various kinds, or other commercial operations, into our national parks. The conclusions arrived at in the guidelines paper are also pertinent. They say protected areas normally achieve recognition and enhanced protection when sufficient numbers of people visit them, appreciate them, and take political action to assure their survival. That is what we are doing. There is also a recommendation that all existing legislation and economic policies need to be reviewed to identify and promote incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of the resources. On the financial side I found it interesting that the researchers concluded:
At present, the cash flow from tourism often returns largely to urban areas, well away from the protected areas themselves. It is always advantageous to invest and assign some tourism revenue to local communities so that local people can see direct financial benefits from park tourism ... and planners and managers should therefore be active in stimulating maximum local economic benefit.
Surely there is some good advice in that for our park planners and managers in New South Wales. I think we have enough national parks; unfortunately, I do not think we make enough use of them. The Government has a clear opportunity to open up these areas to suggestions from the business community and for other recreational uses. Let us hope that the Government has the vision and foresight to make a start on getting more tourists into our national parks in whatever form of tourism that is deemed applicable for those individual parks.
CARBON TAX
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [3.35 p.m.]: Regional Australians have been relying on air services for nearly a century. The earliest commercial service I can find was a 1922 flight out of Geraldton by Western Australian Airways [WAA]. The service was subsidised by the Federal Government to carry mail and a few passengers. Charles Kingsford-Smith was one of the first Western Australian Airways pilots. Ninety years ago the Government of the day had the vision to support country air services. Fast forward to the present Federal Labor-Greens-Independent Government which seems determined to hobble regional air travel. The carbon tax that we were promised would never happen under a government led by Julia Gillard has been cited as part of the reason for the closure of three air routes by Rex Airlines and Brindabella Airlines. In announcing the withdrawal of the routes, Brindabella Group chief operating officer, Ian Vanderbeek, said: 12834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
From the 8th June we shall stop the daily Armidale to Brisbane and Canberra to Albury services ... the introduction of the federal government's carbon tax and the removal of the en-route rebate scheme, both from the 1st July, were major factors in the company's decision. Both of these routes are marginal and cannot be sustained with the additional cost impost that these changes will bring.
Warrick Lodge, the general manager of network strategy and sales for Rex Airlines, said:
The Griffith to Melbourne route is currently Rex's thinnest route and as a result is one of the most marginal. The route operates with a low average load factor and this will be compounded by the federal government's new carbon tax as well as the removal of the en route rebate scheme effective from July 2012. These new taxes and charges are not levied per passenger, but per flight. As a result the additional costs per passenger will be higher on the thinner and more marginal routes.
Mr Lodge further added that more routes may be cut once the full impact of the new government taxes has been digested. Country air travel has always been challenging, with long distances and high costs with smaller aircraft and lower passengers loads. But until now regional Australians have not had the additional handicap of a carbon tax. The airlines say that the marginal services will be tipped into unprofitability. This will only serve to marginalise many country people. Government services become less accessible. Education becomes more distant. Health treatment gets delayed. Business and investment becomes that little bit harder.
Not just mail; passengers or even newspaper delivery are inconvenienced. The president of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, Mr David Warner, is reporting that his members have been advised the fuel used in aerial mustering will cost an extra 9¢ to 10¢ a litre. So the larger stations all across Australia will now be burdened with higher costs for one of the unavoidable operations of their enterprises. This comes after the disruption to their businesses from the suspension of the live export trade last year by the Federal Labor Government from which they are only now beginning to recover. Aerial agriculture also covers fertiliser spreading and chemical application. Aerial application is often the only option in many situations, such as top-dressing rice in the Riverina or pastures in the hilly terrain of my region in the Northern Tablelands.
The terms of trade for agriculture have been declining for some time and this Federal Labor-Greens- Independent Government seems determined to make life even harder for our farmers. Agriculture is inevitably a price taker. There will be limited or no prospect of passing on the extra cost attributable to this tax. The carbon tax was ill conceived. It is economically inefficient, it erodes our comparative advantages and it causes Australia to be out of step with the rest of the developed world. The carbon tax is the genesis of a massive bureaucracy and will make nil or negligible difference to carbon dioxide levels. All rural and regional Australians, whether farmers or not, will pay more for their goods and services from 1 July. Government members are looking forward to the next Federal election and the repeal by a Liberal-National government of that piece of madness.
EUTHANASIA
The Hon. WALT SECORD [3.39 p.m.]: I rise to make a contribution on the policy field of euthanasia. As members know, ensuring proper care for our elderly citizens is a policy interest of mine. As a prosperous nation, Australia has the means to ensure that the final years of elderly people are lived in dignity. In my view our prosperity brings an obligation to do no less. My views are shaped partly by my time spent as Chief of Staff to the Federal Minister for Ageing, Mrs Justine Elliot. During that time I became acutely aware that it was the responsibility of government to provide security and dignity for the nation's elderly when others cannot or will not. It is a background that has enabled me to understand the best and worst of the aged care sector. It also helped me to appreciate what it is like on the ground for the hardworking and committed staff who care for elderly and frail people.
Members will recall that I have spoken many times in this House on the need for a comprehensive policy to respond to our nation's ageing population. Australians have the longest life expectancy in the English- speaking world. Currently in Australia approximately one million people receive some form of aged and community care each year. By 2050 this will increase to more than 3.5 million people. Accordingly, we need a policy response that embraces helping people to remain independent in their homes by finding ways to expand home and community care. The best way to help an older person remain active is to help them remain in their home. I acknowledge that euthanasia is not exclusively an aged care issue—anyone can be struck by terminal illness or debilitating conditions at any stage in their lives—but the impact of euthanasia, in all practicality, predominantly affects our aged community more than any other.
Currently forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. In the United States, Oregon and Washington have similar forms of legal voluntary euthanasia. In Australia, the Northern Territory became our first jurisdiction to introduce assisted suicide laws in 1996. A year 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12835
later they were overturned by the Federal Parliament. Here in Australia we are broadly divided on the issue and my position reflects that. I have great sympathy for those suffering serious and terminal illnesses, but I have reached the conclusion that I am unable to support any move to create laws in New South Wales on euthanasia. I do not approach this from a religious perspective; I approach it from a legislative perspective.
Almost 20 years after its passage there is still considerable community debate over Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. I have been advised that there are three main issues that have arisen from that Act. Firstly, there is an unseemly argument that the laws allow the government and medical insurance companies to transfer resources from those who want to die to those who want to live. Secondly, there is discussion that those with terminal conditions and who did not have full medical cover felt pressured to end their lives early so as not to be a financial burden to their families. The third and most troubling issue is that of financial manipulation. Unfortunately, it has been argued that in some overseas situations family members have hastened the death of a family member if they were set to receive a substantial financial gain. That is a disgusting and sickening prospect but, unfortunately, it is a reality.
Tragically, the number one reason cited in Oregon for people deciding to end their life was that they no longer wanted to be "a burden" on others. An international palliative care professor told me that a person gives up on life when they feel that they have lost respect and dignity. Further, I believe it is impossible to codify this area of law. It is impossible to develop adequate legislative safeguards and frameworks from abuses of euthanasia laws. Instead, State, Territory and Federal governments should be strengthening palliative care in Australia. Advocates of euthanasia frequently raise the issue of suffering as their primary concern. That is exactly what good, well-funded palliative care achieves. Palliative experts say we now have reached the stage at which we have the expertise to respond through medication to almost all levels of pain. That is the reality of modern medicine and advances in modern science.
Palliative care is about helping people leave this world with respect, dignity and minimal pain. I acknowledge that patients in rural and regional areas face particular challenges when it comes to accessing palliative care. Therefore, I believe that more needs to be done in this area. I hope the State Government increases funding and support in this field. Sometimes, and unfortunately, the community confuses minimising pain with euthanasia, but they are entirely different things. It is only through minimising pain through palliative care that we can properly help the elderly or those struck down with terminal illness at any stage to have dignity and security at the end of their lives. I thank the House for its consideration.
CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.44 p.m.]: In October 1995 the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle began an investigation into sexual abuse allegations concerning a Catholic priest in the diocese, Father Denis McAlinden. On 12 October 1995 Father Philip Wilson was appointed by the then Bishop of Maitland-Newcastle, Leo Morris Clarke, as the notary tasked with recording and investigating the allegations relating to Father McAlinden. It appears that a detailed investigation was undertaken. In the course of that investigation Father Wilson received two sworn statements containing serious allegations of sexual abuse by Father McAlinden. Material that appears clearly to be in Father Wilson's handwriting confirms that the two witnesses who gave testimony under oath "were able to identify Father Denis McAlinden as the person who assaulted them". The material also states:
They describe actions of a sexual nature—involving having their bodies touched, and in one case touching Father McAlinden's penis. Both describe these events in a sober and undramatic fashion. In both cases they continued over a lengthy period of time.
The veracity of this testimony is added to by its consistency with the many reports of Father McAlinden's behaviour from other people. These two persons are only representative of many others who would, if asked, come forward to give testimony under oath.
In response to this, in that same month of October 1995 the diocese commenced internal Church proceedings that were designed to lead to the de-laicisation of Father McAlinden, which means that they began the process to defrock him. The records clearly show that at this time the Catholic Church knew of verified sworn evidence of systemic child sexual abuse within the Maitland diocese. Child sexual abuse is, of course, a serious indictable crime. The church also knew the identity of the alleged perpetrator. On 19 October 1995 a letter was sent to Father McAlinden informing him of the proposed de-laicisation. It spoke of "the problems associated with your ministry". It spoke of an admission to Father Brian Lucas. It proposed a rapid defrocking, far away from the glare of media, the police, or any other prying eyes. The letter included a guarantee for Father McAlinden that "your good name will be protected by the confidential nature of this process". The letter ended as follows: 12836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
Finally I beg you, for the sake of souls and the good of the Church, to cooperate in this matter so that it may be speedily resolved. A speedy resolution of this whole matter will be in your own good interests as I have it on very good authority that some people are threatening seriously to take this whole matter to the police.
Father McAlinden did not cooperate. The church then did nothing. On 10 August 1999, almost four years after the original statements were obtained and the initial investigation had been undertaken, a letter was eventually sent from the vicar general to the Professional Standards Resource Group. That letter notified Professional Standards Resource Group of the verified allegations of sexual assault against Father McAlinden and stated further that "we also believe that there are other victims apart from the members of this family". According to this letter the known victims were not interested in taking the matter to the police but it was considered to be "a matter where 'intelligence' could well be given to the police". The letter noted that Father McAlinden had by then left for England to celebrate his golden jubilee as a priest of the church. Not only was Father McAlinden not reported to the police, but also he was allowed to continue as a priest without any supervision or intervention by the church to ensure that he was not committing further abuse against children.
It was not until 4 March 2003 that the police were informed of the complaints received against Denis McAlinden by the then Director of Professional Standards of the Catholic Church. At this time the police officers advised that they had previously received complaints against him—the first for sexual assault in 1953 and two more recent complaints in 1999 and 2000. Father Philip Wilson, the notary who signed the original sworn statement and undertook the initial investigation of the claims, later went on to become vicar general of diocesan management and administration in 1987. In 1996 at the age of 45 he moved to become the Bishop of the Diocese of Wollongong. Since 2001 Bishop Wilson has been the Archbishop of Adelaide, serving as President of the Australian Catholics Bishops Conference from 2006 to 2012. He is currently vice-president of the conference. This exposes some of the perversity of the current Catholic hierarchy.
Those who have failed to report child abuse, protected abusive priests and otherwise failed to fulfil their duty to protect children and report crime may nevertheless proceed up the hierarchy, tasked with ever more responsibility for innocent lives. In New South Wales the failure to report an indictable offence is a crime, yet no prosecution has been forthcoming of Archbishop Wilson or anyone else involved in this matter. It is understood that after more than three years the matter is continuing to be investigated by police in the Hunter. This sorry tale makes it clear that the Catholic Church cannot be trusted to investigate its own past mistakes and must not be allowed to continue to deal with serious criminal offences against children in any internal process. Light needs to be shed on this organisation and its continued, institutional failure to protect children in its care and its very clear culpability in refusing to inform the police of serious indictable offences of which it was well aware.
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES BUDGET
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [3.48 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House an interesting interview on Country Hour yesterday. It was a pretty spectacular piece of buck-passing by the Minister for Primary Industries in relation to achieving the cuts announced in this week's budget. On Country Hour the Minister was quite properly grilled by the host about how the announced cuts in the budget would be implemented in the Department of Primary Industries. Country Hour was clearly concerned, as are many people in country New South Wales, about how 10,000 job cuts will apply. Far from backing up her pre-election promises, and the Government's pre-election promises, that there will be no cuts in the Department of Primary Industries, the Minister was not able to say how many cuts would come from the Department of Primary Industries. She said her director general had told her there were many ways you could reduce costs. She said:
All those decisions will be made by the director general under changed management plans in due course and I am just not in a position to answer that.
That is an outrageous buck pass. Ministers are put in place to make key decisions on the direction of their departments and to make the difficult decisions when necessary about cuts—which we do not think should happen—that the Government has decided will happen. This Minister simply wants to wash her hands of the whole process. That is simply not acceptable. This Minister seems to think that being a Minister is about photo opportunities, not making decisions. It is not acceptable for her simply to pass that on to her director general—a hand-picked director general put in place to slash and burn this department. Instead of addressing the budget the Minister wanted to talk about the review of the livestock health and pest authorities. She talked about there being duplication within her department and said that savings can be made. That in itself should be worrying for many people in New South Wales. She talked about livestock health and pest authorities, which is a complete distraction, because livestock health and pest authorities are funded by rates from ratepayers and they would not be counted as part of these budget savings targeted by the Treasurer. 14 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12837
I am concerned about the future of extension officers in the Department of Primary Industries, particularly after an answer to a question on notice provided to the Hon. Mick Veitch in which the Minister said the Department of Primary Industries must consider how to achieve this most effectively in light of a range of external pressures. Whether the industries are best served by local extension staff in each district or whether an alternative approach is needed is currently under careful consideration. The Minister has admitted there is, what was till then, a secret review going on concerning extension officers—something that Government members should be concerned about given their history on this.
The Minister has form with regard to cuts in regional New South Wales. Right now we are seeing cuts in the Lands Department. Five staff have been cut from Hay; staff have been cut from Goulburn. We will lose local knowledge in those areas, which means we will not be able to respond as effectively or as quickly to landholders on issues such as Crown roads and so on. The member for Dubbo has bragged that these jobs are going to his area, but it is not decentralisation to close small offices and move them to major centres when, overall, you are also cutting a large number of staff in the Lands area of the department.
This Minister already has an appalling record on jobs in regional New South Wales. We have seen cuts in Forestry; we have seen cuts in Lands. We have seen her close small regional Small Business and Regional Development offices, including the loss of jobs in Goulburn. It is not a record that gives one any confidence at all about The Nationals' promises that this would be a decade of decentralisation. That promise looks just as dodgy as the Premier's promises not to sell electricity. This week we saw the hypocrisy in the budget, with so many broken promises. The Minister is showing that she is simply not capable of running the department. Her comments on Country Hour yesterday, when she said it would be up to her director general to identify where savings would be made, are simply buck-passing of the highest order and Government members should be totally embarrassed by a Minister who is not willing to take responsibility for making these critical decisions— decisions that break a core promise made by The Nationals at the last election.
HOTELS HAVE HEARTS GALA DINNER
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.53 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak before this House on the outstanding success of the tenth annual Hotels Have Hearts gala dinner at the Hilton Hotel Sydney on Tuesday 29 May 2012. It is an initiative of the New South Wales hotels industry and was attended by more than 600 people. The gala was held in support of Matthew Talbot Homeless Services, a special initiative of the St Vincent de Paul Society. Matthew Talbot Homeless Services, Australia's largest provider of homeless services, is committed to providing vital support services for men, women, children and their families who are homeless or disadvantaged or who may potentially become homeless. These include 13 services for single homeless men, including the Matthew Talbot Hostel, which daily provides for 100 men including 80 outreach beds. The society also has 10 services specifically directed towards helping women and children.
The St Vincent de Paul Society is committed to educating men and women to help break the cycle of homelessness and, at times, the associated domestic violence. The Ozanam Education Centre, an initiative of Matthew Talbot Homeless Services, opened in 2008 and offers a range of education programs, recreation activities, a drop-in day centre and an extensive information and referral service in a safe, supportive and non- judgemental environment. In partnership with TAFE NSW a range of vocational and educational courses is offered, including Creative Digital Media, Adult Learning and Teaching for Sustainability, and Basic Music Production.
The Hotels Have Hearts gala fundraising events first began in 2002 and since then have funded outstanding services that have helped those who are most disadvantaged. The tradition of people's generous donations—many are hoteliers and business and community leaders with big hearts—has enabled the continuing improvement to services that support those who need them most. The money raised has had a life-changing impact on countless individuals and families. The first event in 2002 funded the Homereach service, the forerunner to the current Community Support Team. From 2004 to 2006 the donations helped fund improvements to the Matthew Talbot Hostel Clinic, such as medical consultation rooms and equipment. Donations in 2007 provided a training kitchen, computer laboratory and art studio at the Matthew Talbot Hostel helping to reintroduce people to their communities. Other improvements over the years include the refurbishing to the rooftop of Vincentian House's recreation and garden space as part of the women's and families services. The 2010 event funded new programs for the Ozanam Learning Centre and a music studio, art room, and TAFE classes. 12838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 June 2012
I acknowledge and give special thanks to the many people who worked endlessly to ensure the success of this event, including all the members of the Australian Hotels Association and the Hotels Have Hearts committee—chairperson Kim Maloney, Brother Dan Stafford, C.Ss.R., Jenny Farrell, John Lucas, John Ryan, Martin Short, and Stephen Harvey. Moreover, I thank Tim Webster, our generous host for the evening, His Excellency the Hon. Sir William Deane, AC, KBE, Patron of Matthew Talbot Homeless Services, the speakers, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell, Premier of New South Wales, Scott Leach, President of the Australian Hotels Association, New South Wales, and especially Megan, a former Vincentian House resident who tugged at our heart strings with recollections of how she and her young family found themselves homeless and on the streets. Through the love of Vinnies staff and volunteers she has rebuilt her life, gained tertiary qualifications and educated her children.
I also acknowledge auctioneer James Keenan, Mikey Robins for providing his enthusiastic entertainment, and Paul Nicolaou, chief executive officer of the Australian Hotels Association, New South Wales, for the heartfelt passion he injects into these wonderful fundraising events. I place on record the wonderful efforts of New South Wales hotels in donating $25 million to the community annually and their support of 40,000 sporting, community and religious organisations. Importantly, I express my deep appreciation and gratitude to Beverley Kerr, President of Matthew Talbot Homeless Services, all the members, employees, and volunteers of Matthew Talbot Homeless Services and the St Vincent de Paul Society, all the sponsors and everyone who played a part of making the 2012 Hotels Have Hearts gala dinner such a success.
The record $470,000 raised will be invested in countless lives of those disadvantaged and provide them with opportunities to better themselves, their families and their communities. Over the past 10 years Hotels Have Hearts has raised well over $2.47 million. It is this great generosity of our community I wish to recognise along with the vital services Matthew Talbot Homeless Services provides, and I give my sincerest thanks to them.
INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION AUSTRALIA
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.58 p.m.]: On Thursday 24 May I had the honour of attending the fundraising launch of Intracranial Hypertension Australia at Kogarah. The event was organised by sufferers with firsthand experience of intracranial hypertension. Intracranial hypertension is raised pressure within the skull and appears as two types: primary or idiopathic, which has no known cause or cure; and secondary, which results from major head trauma. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension is much harder to diagnose. Patients generally begin complaining to their general practitioner of persistent headaches but CT or MRI scans will not display any significant findings. Most patients do not begin to find answers until they visit their optometrist, who discovers papilledema. This then is followed by a visit to the ophthalmologist, who will complete a field of vision test and a more thorough examination of the optic nerve at the back of the eye.
The next step is to visit a neurologist or neurosurgeon, who generally will require CT and MRI scans to be carried out. When these return no significant findings a lumbar puncture is required. This final test is able to diagnose idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Although intracranial hypertension can be treated by weight loss and medication, some cases will require surgery, which includes shunting by inserting a small flexible piece of hose inside a blood vessel to hold it open to allow constant blood flow; stents, which could be draining from the lumbar spine to the peritoneal cavity or from the ventricle to the peritoneal cavity; and optic nerve sheath fenestration, which is a procedure involving the cutting of a window or slit into the sheath to relieve the pressure of optic nerve swelling and to allow the cerebral spinal fluid to escape.
The Intracranial Hypertension Australia foundation was established by three directors and fellow sufferers who have worked together as a team to get the organisation off the ground: Louise Hampshire, Liz Griffiths and Maree Manis. The foundation launch raised thousands of dollars that will provide support, information and tools for intracranial hypertension sufferers and their families throughout Australia. This will empower sufferers to understand their condition and the treatments available. The foundation is particularly keen to develop a resource to assist research bodies in ultimately working towards a cure for intracranial hypertension. Most importantly, the foundation will allow a portal for those who think they are alone to find fellow sufferers who can provide comfort and understanding.
[Time for debate expired.]
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.01 p.m. until Tuesday 19 June 2012 at 2.30 p.m.