2336
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 26 September 2007 ______
The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT (SPECIAL EVENTS HOTEL TRADING) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 25 September 2007.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.00 a.m.]: Whilst we are waiting for the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing to officially reply on behalf of the Coalition, I would like to make a contribution to this debate. The object of the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007 is to extend the trading hours of hotels on certain days during the 2007 Rugby World Cup, and to enable the trading hours of hotels to be extended during any period prescribed by the regulations, being a period that coincides with the holding of a special event of regional, State, national or international significance.
The extended hotel trading hours in relation to the 2007 Rugby World Cup are until 1.00 a.m. on the mornings following Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 October 2007—hotels are normally required to close at midnight on Saturdays and at 10.00 p.m. on Sundays—and from 5.00 a.m. on the morning of Sunday 7, Sunday 14 and Sunday 21 October 2007. Hotels normally cannot open until 10.00 a.m. on a Sunday. These extended trading hours coincide with the times when some of the final matches of the Rugby World Cup will be played.
In the case of the mornings of Sunday 7 October and Monday 8 October, which is the anticipated finishing time of the matches being played at that time, the 1.00 a.m. closing time will, if the relevant match is still in progress because of extra time or some other reason, be extended until the completion of the match. However, extended trading past 1.00 a.m. will apply only if the hotel is actually showing live coverage of the match to its patrons. The extended hotel trading permitted by the proposed Act, including any period prescribed by the regulations in relation to a special event, will apply only to the sale or supply of liquor for consumption in hotels.
As I said, the bill applies only to special events. Whilst I do not lead on behalf of the Coalition and I expect the shadow Minister to clearly state our case in more expanded terms, these special events that are attracted to New South Wales and our cities are important and it is essential that government gets it right. I reflect briefly on two major events that were held last year when the city of Sydney was caught very much unaware. There were traffic jams and gridlock, and I know that many hospitality venues were caught short.
I am concerned that there may be implications from the bill. I certainly would be keen for the Parliamentary Secretary at the table, the member for Miranda, to clarify in his response the powers of the Minister in relation to the bill. I would be very concerned, as I think others would be, that the bill would give the Minister carte blanche to sign off on any agreement at any time to extend trading hours for what the Minister deems to be a special event. The bill has other implications, which I am sure the shadow Minister will expand upon in his contribution.
Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [10.05 a.m.]: I am delighted to lead for the Opposition on the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007, and I thank the member for Wagga Wagga for keeping the fires going for the time being. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the opportunity for hotels to have extended hours to afford telecasts of the Rugby World Cup rugby union tournament, which is underway in France at the moment. Indeed, there are only a few days in question; they are identified in bill. Some of those days involve telecasts which would screen a match commencing at 1.00 a.m., and on other days matches would commence at 5.00 a.m. In relation to the former, I can readily see that it would be good policy to extend hotel trading hours, firstly so that patrons can view the game, and secondly so that hoteliers do not have any trouble with disgruntled patrons being asked to interrupt their enjoyment of the Rugby World Cup and then the patrons perhaps spilling onto the streets and causing trouble. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2337
However, I have some reservations about who would get out of bed at 4.30 a.m. to go to a hotel to watch a rugby match—unless, of course, it is a final match and Australia is participating. If that is the case, I will be up at 4.30 a.m. with them! That would be a good outcome indeed. I am a little distressed at the way in which the bill has come forward. I have a significant reservation, and indeed foreshadow that if the bill remains intact and the Government is hell-bent on pursuing it in that form, the Opposition will oppose it in the lower House and will seek leave in the other place to move an amendment.
The issue I refer to arises out of the part of the bill which seeks to give the Minister open-ended powers into the future to select any special event of regional, State or national significance and to by gazette extended hotel trading hours without reference to Parliament. Having said that, I see some logic in the bill's provisions, providing we can have a proper debate and we can consider the issue in the fullness of time. Indeed, a large liquor bill is to come before the Parliament shortly, and this is the appropriate place to include such a provision and subject it to general debate.
The Government approached the Opposition, firstly by phone—and I thank the Minister for phoning me the night before the introduction of the bill, that is, last Monday night—and we were presented on Tuesday morning with a memorandum, rather than a copy of the bill, by Mr Phillip Kelly—and I appreciate the reason for that. At no stage were either the Minister or Mr Kelly able to tell me that the bill also contained the blanket provision allowing the Minister, at any time in the future, to gazette extended trading hours for any special event the Minister may decide. I discovered this an hour or so after I had been given the memorandum.
It seems that by using the Rugby World Cup as a smokescreen, the Government is now trying to slip into the bill a major provision which refers not only to these few days of the Rugby World Cup but also to any day in the future that the Minister deems to be a special event and therefore deems it appropriate to extend hotel trading hours. This is not the bill in which that provision should be included. If the Government really wants to deal properly with public policy, this is not correct approach.
The Rugby World Cup currently underway in France was planned some four years ago—at least during the last time this House sat before rising in June this year. It was very clear on what days and at what times events or pool games would be held, when the quarter-finals and semi-finals would be held, when the final would be on, and whether the winner of pool A played the winner of pool B, et cetera. All the details were clearly identified for everyone to know, particularly the Government, and that was the case well before the Parliament last sat. So, to turn up here on Tuesday morning with a sudden and urgent bill requiring the suspension of standing orders so that it can pass through both Houses this week to provide for extended trading hours for hotels for the duration of the Rugby World Cup demonstrates to me that the Government is not aware of what are major events.
The Government has not had proper consultation with the industry. I know that for many months before today the industry certainly has been seeking the Government's assistance to operate extended trading hours during the Rugby World Cup—for many, many months. So, that is not an excuse. What has the Government been doing all this time? It has been doing nothing. It has been sitting on its hands and all of a sudden the Rugby World Cup is upon us. Someone in the Minister's office—perhaps the Minister himself, who knows—suddenly has realised that the change has to happen this week otherwise the Government has made a mess administratively of the requirement to put before the House this bill to extend trading hours.
I would have thought that was bad enough, but with the cooperation of the Opposition this bill would have passed through both Houses very quickly and the industry then would have had at least some time— I would hope sufficient time—to organise staffing and all of the other aspects, for example, to organise public transport, to fit in as well as possible with the proposed extended hours. At least that would have been possible, but now the Government has included this blanket power of the Minister to declare a special event on any future day. Even by pretending that between today and the conclusion of debate on the liquor bill in a few months' time a special day might arise so that such blanket power is necessary in case of a major event of international or national significance, is the Government trying to say that it does not know what sporting events of international significance have been scheduled on the world program?
Everyone in the entire world knows, but the New South Wales Government, under current arrangements and the current Minister, does not know. The Government is worried that an event might suddenly spring up for which it is not ready and this extended power is needed to declare summarily a special event. What a joke! Is the Government really going to press this argument in debate? Is it really going to make this the salient point of this bill? If so, I am sorry to say this is seriously amateur hour in both the department and in the Minister's office in the New South Wales Government. 2338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
To conclude, I reaffirm that the Opposition is not in any way suggesting that the Rugby World Cup should not or would not enjoy the privilege of extended trading hours in hotels so that New South Wales patrons can view those fixtures. However, it is abhorrent that the Government, under the good will of the Rugby World Cup, has tried to squeeze into this bill this blanket change of policy outside the liquor bill. Of course, that bill should have been here for debate last year as we all know but, of course, government members were a bit lily-livered just prior to the election and all sorts of reasons were found as to why we ran out of time. I understand the liquor bill will be before this House shortly. Surely the Government by its own hand should amend this bill, remove this blanket provision to extend trading hours and make this special events bill specific to the Rugby World Cup. Let us all agree to that and then let us debate the broader issue of these blanket powers when the liquor bill comes before this House. That would be a proper way to do business; this bill is not.
This also is an attempt at trickery. It is an attempt to trick the Parliament by using the good will of the Rugby World Cup to extend the policy area and to give the Minister these unfettered powers. As I have said, we ought to be able to consider these powers more properly with decent discussion and the appropriate time is when the liquor bill comes before the House. This very sudden presentation of a bill to go through all stages, with the suspension of standing orders, to get to the other place so that it can be passed this week is not the way to introduce a major policy change. As far as I am concerned, it is on the Government's head that it has produced a bill of this nature and it risks the outcome. It is in the Government's hands. It drafted the bill and presented it to the Parliament. We did not do any of that. As far as the Rugby World Cup is concerned, we approve the proposal to extend trading hours. As far as this sudden change of policy that has been snuck into this bill under cover of Rugby World Cup, no, we do not agree. That is an outrageous breach of the trust and good will that surrounds the Rugby World Cup.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.16 a.m.]: I did not believe that the Opposition would—
Mr George Souris: Where is the Minister?
Mr ALAN ASHTON: I would not raise that, George. You dropped in late. We gave the member for Wagga Wagga a chance to make the first speech.
Mr George Souris: We will give him another few minutes.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: The Minister will drop in, I am sure, but I am speaking to the bill because I did not believe the Opposition would find the matter of special events to be so controversial. I understand the passion of the member for Upper Hunter for rugby union. I share that passion equally for Australian Rules, rugby league, trotting, and every sport with probably the exception of cars going around tracks very quickly. I do not believe the Opposition is correct when it says that what we are doing today is an attempt to subvert or pre-empt the provisions of the liquor bill that will be debated in a few weeks.
I understand the Opposition opposes section 24AA "Extended hotel trading hours—special events." I do not know whether the Opposition will move a further amendment but, clearly, the proposed amendment refers to "special events". A special event cannot be just at the whim of the Minister, despite what the Opposition says. Section 24AA(3) states, "For the purposes of subsection (2), special event" which is in heavy type, "means an event that the Minister considers …". So, there is a ministerial discretion, but there always is under regulations. It continues, "to be of regional …". Therefore, I am sure that applies to electorates of the member for Lismore, perhaps the member for Coffs Harbour or the member for Upper Hunter.
It could be a very major event in a country area. The special event may be in the Speaker's electorate of Northern Tablelands or in the Armidale-Tamworth area. It could be a very special event there. Obviously, I am thinking of the Tamworth music festival, which happens in January every year. The Minister could make an amendment to allow extended trading hours during that music festival. To be honest, I am sure that probably already happens. I am not totally familiar with what happens during the country music festival, but the point is that extended trading hours will be allowed under the definition of regional significance.
Of course, in that definition "state" means all of New South Wales. Perhaps that could apply to the opening of hotels for longer hours during the State of Origin in the Tweed area or somewhere like that. Of course, the definition of "national" is obvious if Australia were involved in something similar to the America's Cup in 1983 when Bob Hawke declared virtually a national holiday when we won. So, an event such as that would allow hotels to extend their trading hours. Finally, "international significance" would apply to events such as the one we are talking about. The Rugby World Cup is not being held in Australia this year, but I remember 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2339
that it was on the last occasion. I am sure provisions would have been made for the operation of extended trading hours when that event was held in Australia four or five years ago.
I believe that proposed subsection (3) should not concern the Opposition much. The first Opposition spokesperson in this debate, the Opposition Whip, talked about how the Government was caught out when the two American ships arrived in Sydney Harbour earlier this year. I guess to some extent we probably were. I certainly did not consider that the people in my electorate of East Hills ought to get on the train and go down and look at two very big boats in Sydney Harbour. What is Sydney most famous for? The harbour. So if two ships turn up as they did—
Mr George Souris: You are really going on a ministerial whim now.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is a point.
Mr George Souris: The sudden arrival of a ship?
Mr ALAN ASHTON: No. I am referring to what was said by your first leading speaker. That is the point and it is in Hansard. We were very good on the Government side. There was no Opposition spokesman to lead for the Opposition. We thought in the spirit of this new situation, with the new Speaker, the new Government and the new period—
Mr George Souris: The bill is listed as number eight, not as number one.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: It is number one so we can get it passed before Australia wins the Rugby World Cup, even with Stephen Larkham's recent infection in his knee. The point is we allowed the Opposition Whip to speak on this and he raised the issue of the two ships coming in, saying how outrageous it was that the Government was not prepared to recognise the arrival of the two ships in the harbour as a special event and we should have been aware of it. If it was a special event, and given the thousands of sailors on the American aircraft carrier—
Mr Phillip Costa: Six thousand.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is right; I remember the excitement in some suburbs about the arrival of 6,000 American sailors. That in a sense was a special event. It might well have been that some of those sailors like a drink and maybe we could have extended the hotel hours; I do not know. I think the Opposition is reading far too much into this. The member for the Upper Hunter has talked about it being a blanket power. It is not. The bill is clearly called the "Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill".
Mr George Souris: The blanket powers bill.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: It is a good interjection by the member for the Upper Hunter, but it is not true; it is not the blanket powers bill. It is the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill and it includes a definition of the Rugby World Cup and then talks about extended hotel trading hours for special events. That means the Parliament does not have to reconvene every couple of weeks to consider what might be a special event, a national or international event, across New South Wales, the South Coast, the North Coast, the outback or in the bush. We cannot have the Parliament reconvene each time, drag in every member from the North Tweed, Barwon, Broken Hill and all around the State so that we can vote that a hotel can be opened a couple of extra hours on a couple of extra days or perhaps only one day.
Another bill will be introduced that will have to survive upper House scrutiny. I think the Opposition is reading far too much into it if it thinks the Government would try to push through legislation that the member for Upper Hunter says contains blanket powers or is a Trojan Horse to deal with stalking or other offences. It is none of those things; it is common sense, as the member for Wollondilly says. It is added to the bill so the Minister can consider it as a special event. That would only be on the advice of the department and recognised by newspapers and radio that the event has regional, state, national or international significance. The shadow spokesman has highlighted it and I do not think his fears are justified. I believe the bill can go through as it is without need of amendment. It is simply an attempt not to have the Parliament brought back every time that we, or the public, consider there is some special event.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.23 p.m.]: I speak on the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill and declare once again that I have an interest in a hotel. In saying that I would like to 2340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
endorse what our shadow minister has just said. The Opposition does not oppose extending hotel trading hours for the Rugby World Cup. The shadow minister has foreshadowed a new Liquor Act and that is the appropriate time to discuss blanket ministerial approval, when it can be properly debated. The Government has the opportunity now to adjourn the debate on this bill and to avoid the amendment that was the shadow Minister foreshadowed would be moved in another place. We on this side fully support the Rugby World Cup extension of trading hours. However, giving a carte blanche approval to the Minister would be more appropriately addressed in the Liquor Act, which will be debated in the future.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.25 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members—
Mr George Souris: I am not telling you how to run your business, but you should be taking an adjournment.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: Thank you for the advice but—
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: I thank the members for Wagga Wagga, Upper Hunter, East Hills and Lismore for their contribution to the debate. I note—to quote the words of the member for the Upper Hunter— that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the opportunity for hotels to have extended trading hours but opposes giving the Minister power by regulation to make rules for extending trading hours for certain future events. I also note the issues raised by the member for Wagga Wagga about noise and disturbances around hotels. I will deal with that first.
I think it important to keep in mind that a significant number of hotels already have extended trading hours approved and they will not be affected by this legislation. Also some hotels may not wish to make use of extended hours. The extension will not overrule any previously imposed trading restrictions or other conditions that apply to an individual hotel licence. This includes restrictions imposed on hotel licences to reduce disturbances to the neighbourhood, such as reduced trading hours and lockouts. The bill does not overrule local council planning approvals.
The Government expects, and the law requires—I am sure the member for the Upper Hunter is interested in this—hotels to operate responsibly and to ensure no undue disturbance to the neighbourhood at all times. That applies equally to hotels trading under these provisions. Any hotel that does not do the right thing runs the risk of being disciplined by having its trading hours cut back. Those hotels would then be unable to make use of extended hours on significant occasions in the future. The Government expects the local hotel operators to keep that in mind when they make use of the extended hours provided by the bill. The licensees and patrons must comply with the responsible service of alcohol laws or future hotel trading during major sporting events will be put at risk. Patrons arriving at or leaving licensed premises are also expected to be mindful of surrounding residents. Many of the regions, including the Sutherland Shire, have a very well regarded and successful liquor accord.
As to the power given to the Minister to make a regulation to cover future significant events, that power will be extended to allow sales for consumption on the premises only to be prescribed on a day on which a special event is to be held or on a day immediately following such a day. It is important to realise, of course, that the special event must be an event of regional, State or national significance. That applies right across the board. It applies to events in the Upper Hunter, Wagga Wagga and Lismore. In fact, I think there is a note that the Australian Hotels Association expects the majority of hotels, other than those already operating with 24-hour licences, to participate in country areas. Of course, that includes hotels with strong sporting associations. Many of the country people who are interested in these sporting events will benefit from the extended trading hours.
The issue for hoteliers is that the broadcast schedules for international events are not often finalised until a month or two before those events. Often we do not even know whether the event will be telecast live to air on free-to-air television, pay television or any other local television channels until the last minute. The issue is not what world events are scheduled; the issue is what time these events will be broadcast. Often that is not known until one or two months before the event. Obviously, it is a waste of public money and resources to recall the House to pass an amendment every time a special event occurs. I have no doubt that if something went wrong subsequent to a special event the Opposition would be yelling and screaming. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2341
I reiterate that for a regulation to be made the Minister must consider the event to be of regional, State, national or international significance. That may apply to any specified class of premises, such as hotels located in a particular area. I hope the member for Upper Hunter will note that the regulation-making power will provide for action to be taken quickly to cater for future events. The power has been included simply because the essential details are often not known until quite near the event, and it is not always possible for amendments to the Liquor Act to be made in time. The 2007 Rugby World Cup is a good example: arrangements can be made only now for finals matches, not for pool matches, because of the timing. The proposed regulation-making power will overcome that problem.
It is important to remember that the Government has no specific events in mind at this time. However, I have no doubt that when an event perceived by the member for Upper Hunter to be an event of regional importance is planned for his electorate he will be the first to knock on the Minister's door asking that the event be televised and that hotels be permitted to stay open a bit later so that supporters in sporting clubs in his electorate and his other constituents will be able to view the event at a hotel.
Mr George Souris: I am known for giving ample time.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: The member for Upper Hunter will be the first person to knock on the Minister's door, and when he asks his regional television station to televise the event the response probably will be, "Maybe, George—maybe not. We will discuss it a bit later."
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to continue his reply.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: The Government has no specific events in mind. Industry views will be considered. The member for Upper Hunter may note also that police have been consulted in relation to the extension of hotel trading hours, as I am sure they will be consulted in relation to the extension of other business trading hours during special events. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That the bill be now agreed to in principle—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 44
Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Beamer Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Burney Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burton Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Mr Campbell Mr Khoshaba Mr Shearan Mr Collier Mr Koperberg Mr Stewart Mr Coombs Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Corrigan Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Costa Dr McDonald Mr Watkins Mr Daley Ms McKay Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr McLeay Tellers, Ms Firth Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms Meagher Mr Martin
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Souris Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Stokes Mr Baumann Mr Kerr Mr Stoner Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr J. H. Turner Mr Cansdell Ms Moore Mr R. W. Turner Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr J. D. Williams Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr R. C. Williams Mr Draper Mr Page Mrs Fardell Mr Provest Mr Fraser Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Roberts Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Smith Mr Maguire 2342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Pairs
Ms Judge Mrs Hancock Mr Terenzini Mr O'Farrell Mr West Mrs Skinner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (BREASTFEEDING) BILL 2007
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.
Agreement in Principle
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.40 a.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill provides for amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to remove any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful. The year 2007 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Thirty years ago the New South Wales Parliament moved to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and marital status in the areas of employment, the provision of goods and services and accommodation, and race discrimination in education. Since then the New South Wales Parliament has responded to deal with other forms of discrimination. The Anti-Discrimination Act now applies to discrimination on many grounds, including age, religion, disability, carers' responsibilities, pregnancy, homosexuality and transgender status. Discrimination on these grounds is rendered unlawful in the areas of employment, State education, goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs. Both direct and indirect discrimination are against the law.
The bill before the House seeks to further enhance the coverage of the Anti-Discrimination Act by removing any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful. Discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or a characteristic that pertains to a person of that sex, or is generally imputed to a person of that sex, is already unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Pregnancy is specifically cited as a characteristic that appertains generally to women. The bill will insert a new provision into the Act to make it clear that breastfeeding is also a characteristic that appertains generally to women. The bill also provides that breastfeeding includes the act of expressing milk. The bill also makes it clear that a person is not to be treated as having unlawfully discriminated against a man on the ground of sex merely because that person grants a woman rights or privileges in connection with breastfeeding.
It is timely for New South Wales to clarify the law in this area. There is now considerable evidence to suggest that increasing levels of breastfeeding will bring important benefits for the health of the Australian community. Clearly, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding will ensure that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from any discriminatory conduct that may impact on that choice. In 2003 the World Health Organisation and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund endorsed their Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which drew attention to the need to provide facilities for breastfeeding women to be able to engage in employment outside the home while continuing to breastfeed. Enacting legislation to remove any doubt that discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding is unlawful will make an important contribution to achieving this global goal. These amendments will provide breastfeeding mothers with the protection of the law, helping to ensure that children in this State are given the best start in life. I commend the bill to the House. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2343
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Greg Smith and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 25 September 2007.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.44 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. Although the Opposition does not oppose the bill, we wish to refer to some aspects and criticise the Government for rushing through this legislation. The Government should not have amended the penalties for an offence of grievous bodily harm in a bill that also removes the concept of malice as defined in the Crimes Act and its predecessor from, I think, 1878. That definition, which has continued through the various Acts, admittedly is full of problems. However, the Government has used the very serious public and social issue of rock throwing as a Trojan Horse to rush through this legislation without allowing proper consultation or giving us the opportunity to speak to the stakeholders to determine whether they are satisfied with the draft bill.
It is all very well for the Government to say that it put out a discussion paper in 2005, although it was not prepared to give us a copy, and ask the Opposition to cooperate on this important piece of legislation. In a phone call to arrange an urgent meeting we were told the legislation solely related to rock throwing. To a great extent, the rock throwing issue was an afterthought by the Government. Last week, after the Opposition had been in the media saying we need a specific offence of rock throwing, the Premier came out and said that Cabinet had decided to increase the penalty for grievous bodily harm and look at the specific offence of rock throwing.
The Government has had at least nine years of warning about the offence of rock throwing. Back in 1998 there was an incident of rock throwing involving three young men at Menangle. On 22 August 1998 they parked their car on an overpass and removed rocks from the boot. They positioned the rocks on the top rails of the overpass on the southern and northern sides. As a semitrailer passed under the bridge they pushed off the rocks. Justice Michael Adams in his sentence judgment in the cases of Regina v Sutcliffe, Regina v McGoldrick and Regina v McGoldrick, [2000] New South Wales Supreme Court, 825, said:
It seems that the idea was to hit the trailers of the trucks as they came out from under the bridge, with one or more yelling that the truck was coming as it approached the bridge with the rocks being pushed off the railing as it emerged. I have no doubt that this was a cooperative exercise in which all four offenders were involved. At the end, three rocks were left on the railing. Two of them were pushed simultaneously off the railing by [one or more of the offenders] …
The two rocks crashed through the windscreen of the vehicle. At least one of them struck the driver in the chest, causing massive injuries and transecting the aorta, causing virtually immediate death. His vehicle went out of control, veered left striking the guard rail then right and travelled across the nature strip separating the north and south bound roadways, crossing the two northbound lanes and travelling up the western embankment where it came to a rest near a large tree.
A minute before another driver was driving his Kenworth road tanker laden with 20 tonnes of butane gas along the M5 freeway in the same direction. As he went under the Glenlee Road underpass he saw two large objects about the size of footballs fall directly in front of his truck and almost at the same time he heard a loud noise as though something had hit the cabin. He pulled into the breakdown lane, where he stopped and, upon inspection, found pieces of sandstone rock in the truck cabin and jammed into the roof area of the sleeper compartment. It is not clear which man threw the rocks. Vehicles are driven at about 100 kilometres an hour along the freeway and there is no doubt that when projectiles are thrown at them the risk of death is very high. After all, the driver of the first vehicle was killed in that manner.
This Government has been dragging the chain on this issue for nine years. I have described just one incident that occurred almost 10 years ago in which one man was killed by a rock the size of a football and another was put at risk of serious injury or death. Yet it has taken the Government almost 10 years to introduce legislation in this area, and even then it is not targeted specifically at this offence. In 2000 the Australian Capital Territory passed legislation that dealt specifically with this issue and a number of years ago the South Australian Parliament passed similar legislation banning the throwing of projectiles such as rocks at vehicles. The New South Wales Government has had years to act but what has it done? The Government has declared that it has solved the problem by increasing the penalties in the Crimes Act for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. It happened to have a bill ready that removes the word "malicious" and tacks on extra penalties, which the Government claims will cover the offence of rock throwing. That is garbage. 2344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Last week when the Premier exited a press conference he said, "I've got the Attorney General and the police Minister looking at specific legislation to see what they can come up with." He said that while the shadow Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, and I were holding a press conference calling for specific legislation to address this massive social problem. It is long overdue. This year there have been some 50 arrests for this sort of offence. Yet the Government has not drafted specific legislation; it has simply introduced some amendments to the Crimes Act that will increase penalties. That does not send a message to the mad men and youths who would drop rocks on people's heads.
Two weeks ago rocks were thrown at two trains travelling between Eastwood and Pennant Hills. It is a widespread and common problem. Last weekend more rocks were thrown at vehicles on the South Coast. Just a few months ago Nicole Miller suffered serious injuries when she was struck in the head by a rock. The perpetrator of that offence was granted bail by a police sergeant; he did not even have to appear in court. What is that offender's charge? He is charged with negligently causing grievous bodily harm. There are no amendments to the penalty for that offence. What is the penalty for negligently causing grievous bodily harm? Does the member for Cronulla know? Is it 15 years, 10 years or maybe five years? No, it is two years. That is all the Government can come up with. Another charge might be added in the Nicole Miller case but those involved believe the evidence will satisfy only the charge that I have mentioned.
This Government has taken very little notice of this issue. It has acted now only because of public concern and the Opposition's call for a specific offence that picks up the penalty under section 33—25 years imprisonment for those who throw rocks and other projectiles deliberately. The Opposition will also consider introducing a private member's bill that includes that provision. We will also consider amending section 35 and introducing a specific offence of throwing rocks and other projectiles at vehicles. The Opposition will also consider removing the presumption in favour of bail. Why has the Government not addressed that issue? Nothing in this legislation will make it harder for offenders to get bail. The amendment to section 35 does not change that situation. It has been claimed that it is mainly children who commit these offences. That is not true: adults are also being charged with these offences. Unfortunately, there are some crazy people in the community.
The Government must educate the community. What has it done in the nine years since the Menangle incident? Has it distributed education materials to schools, colleges of advanced education and universities? Have there been any television campaigns about this major social problem? There are advertisements on television about smoking and the harm that it causes. We have advertisements on television about the damage that drinking excessive amounts of alcohol—and particularly drink driving—can do to the individual and to others. I agree that they are major problems. However, instead of spending so much taxpayers' money attacking the Opposition during the last election campaign, the Government should have warned the public about the consequences of people throwing rocks and other projectiles at vehicles, trains or ferries. Yet the Government has done nothing but increase the penalties; it has not introduced a specific offence.
I do not mean to criticise the officers who briefed me on this legislation yesterday. They were just doing their job and were extremely decent and courteous. However, they disclosed something that was not part of the previous arrangements. The legislation is not just about rock throwing; it removes the word "malicious" as a fault element for offences under the Crimes Act. That word is very important. I know that it has caused confusion and has been criticised over the years by various judges, including Justice Hunt, former Chief Judge at Common Law, and more recently by Justice Sully in the 2004 Livingstone case—to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in his speech during the agreement in principle stage.
The criminal law should never be changed by ambush or in haste. This amendment should have been put to the legal community for further discussion. The Government should have said, "We've heard what you've said. Here is our bill. We will give you two or three weeks—a little time—to look at it and see whether you are happy with the way we have changed the law." Perhaps the Government did that but it did not have the courtesy to show the legislation to the Opposition. It did not ask, "Would you support this? Do you agree with these changes? Do you have any views or suggestions?" A good government that has mastery of its brief and cares about criminal justice and law and order would generally do that when making a major reform to the criminal law—which is what removing the word "malicious" amounts to. After all, criminal justice and law and order are among the major reasons why State governments exist. State governments ensure that the community is protected.
"Malice" is a widely used term. In the Livingstone case Justice Sully criticised the existing law and said that it needed more work. We do not disagree with that but we want a chance to review any amendments. We need time to do this, yet we first sighted this amendment only the day before the bill was introduced. The 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2345
Government's bill is a Trojan Horse that purports to address the great social evil of throwing rocks and projectiles. Section 5 of the Crimes Act defines "maliciously" as being:
Every act done of malice, whether against an individual or any corporate body or number of individuals, or done without malice but with indifference to human life or suffering—
Does that constitute "recklessness"? What does the phrase "indifference to human life or suffering" mean? Is its meaning caught by the word "intention"? I do not think so. Does "reckless" mean the same thing? I do not think "recklessness" covers it either. The section continues:
or with intent to injure some person or persons—
"intent" is the main point of the section—
or corporate body, in property or otherwise, and in any such case without lawful cause or excuse, or done recklessly or wantonly—
In the expression "or done recklessly or wantonly", what was "or wantonly" intended to mean? We have the expression "wanton driving"—different from recklessness—but that has been eliminated now as a criminal offence. Section 5 continues:
shall be taken to have been done maliciously within the meaning of this Act.
The High Court in Lavender v The Queen—in which I appeared for the Crown and we won the appeal 7-0— looked at the confusion that had been caused by what appeared to be a definition of murder and manslaughter in section 18 of the Crimes Act, and that confusion had found itself in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Lavender v The Queen is a case of criminal negligence manslaughter where the driver of a front-end loader chased some boys into the scrub around a sand mine up near Newcastle. Instead of the driver just saying, "Go home. Get out of here", or something like that, he chased the boys and without being able to see or hear them he ran one of them over and killed him. He was convicted of manslaughter by negligence after proper directions were given to the jury in accordance with the law and in accordance with the decision of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Nydam, which was the leading authority before Lavender on criminal negligence manslaughter.
The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal worked out three different ways of looking at the matter. The court considered that in accordance with the definition of murder maybe the offence of manslaughter ought to have the element of malice in it too, which had never been considered a plausible argument by courts before—there had been the occasional mention of it but never any considered examination. Unfortunately, the court did not seek further assistance in the sense of asking for submissions on the statutory history of the section to see whether it was wrong and whether there is an explanation for the possibility that manslaughter requires malice as we see it. One of the problems with the criminal justice system in this State is that there are not enough judges to handle all the work in the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal and it would have been very difficult to reconstitute the court to hear further argument.
In a 7-0 decision the High Court said the Court of Criminal Appeal got it wrong in the three different versions. The High Court said it was clear that manslaughter did not require malice. The court looked at the definition of malice and thought that it was not very helpful anyway. In the debate we looked at the fact that the Australian Capital Territory had changed its laws, which had originally mirrored our laws in the Crimes Act and had incorporated the old definition of malice that we still have—subject to the passing of this bill—and considered that they had not necessarily got it right either. It is not an easy thing just to say, "We will change the law simply by putting in the elements of intent and recklessness", because something could be missed.
I and the Opposition, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, would like the time at least to have a look at the documents, the arguments and the learned comments of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Public Defender, the Law Reform Commission perhaps and the Criminal Law Review Division, not just to have the issue rushed into this Parliament as a Trojan Horse to deal with rock throwing. It is unfortunately an aspect of government in this State that at the moment there is not much order in the running of this Parliament and bills are suddenly brought on urgently. Why could we not have had some notice a few weeks ago? We are still doing our work out in our electorate offices; we are coming into Parliament regularly for conferences; we all work hard, but we would put time into something like this.
I, those advising me, and those who have an interest on our side—and there are many—would have put time into looking at this question of the amendment of "malice", because it is a fundamental issue; it is not 2346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
something that should be rushed in. I notice the Government did not address the matter in its last parliamentary term: there was no foreshadowing of it and it was not on its election platform. It is not as if the Government had a mandate for it. This is an attempt to correct an anomaly but we should at least have had an opportunity to have a decent look at it, as should the stakeholders involved.
I mentioned the South Australian law that we will look at incorporating in our three-pronged bill. Section 32A (1) of that legislation, Throwing objects at vehicles, states that:
A person must not throw a prescribed object at, or drop a prescribed object on, a vehicle that is being driven on a road or road-related area or being run on a busway, railway or tramway (whether, at the time the object is thrown or dropped, the vehicle is moving or stationary).
The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. I have not had time in the rush of this week to look at that from the point of view of finding equivalent legislation in New South Wales. I do not think there is any, but I might be wrong. I believe that throwing objects at vehicles should be banned in any legislation if the Government honours its suggestion mooted by the Premier last week that it will bring forward some specific legislation to cover rock throwing. I do not think people should benefit from the fact that what they threw missed hitting somebody or, in the case of a rock the size of a football, that it did not hit the driver. There should still be some sort of punishment for the act itself. Maybe the offence is covered in the area of assault or something of that sort at the moment but I am certainly not aware of anything specific. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will disabuse me of that view if I am wrong.
On the question of bail, whilst the Bail Act does not exist to punish people, there have already been a number of cutting and pasting amendments adding to the presumptions of bail and various other things. The Bail Act is a very confusing document, especially for journalists and the public generally. I think one probably needs to be a High Court judge to steer one's way through it, but I think it would be good to put in a presumption against the grant of bail for this most antisocial behaviour when it is compared with some of the other offences that do have a presumption against bail, for example, murder. Rock throwing can turn into a murder case; people may do it with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. In fact, in the case of McGoldrick the offenders were charged with murder because an act done with reckless indifference to human life—which the courts have treated slightly differently from other types of recklessness over the years—can be an act of murder and can receive very substantial punishment.
There is no criticism of the worthy advisers and staffers of the Attorney General who have cooperated with me and with the Opposition in assisting as much as they are allowed to do, but there is criticism of the Attorney General being at Government House yesterday when he should have been answering questions on this sort of issue. It was not important enough for Parliament to have question time; members headed down to Government House for afternoon tea. It is always a great pleasure to visit Her Excellency and she is doing a great job for this State, but I do not believe members should have gone to Government House and, as a result, not have question time.
The Attorney General has today released other comments about rape cases. We constantly look at each other's material and I am highly critical of him for what he has done. He is treating this Parliament as his toy, just as he has been treating other agencies of the criminal justice system with contempt. It is about time that he provided a good explanation about why this aspect of the legislation should be rushed through. Why could the Government not make an amendment to section 35 and the other sections increasing the penalties using the expression "maliciously" and allow us to look at the other issues with a little reflection and time so we can do our job and serve our community in the way it wants us to serve it and to ensure that the laws that determine how the criminal justice system operates are considered laws?
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.11 a.m.]: The people of New South Wales have every reason to be angry about the Government's treatment of this matter. It is an absolute disgrace. As members of Parliament would be aware, in recent times a number of people have thrown rocks at or dropped rocks on moving vehicles. Can the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Attorney General seriously say, as he did yesterday, that it is only in recent times that he has been aware of the actions of these cowardly criminals? It has been going on for years. As the shadow Attorney General said, there was a notorious case 10 years ago and we are all aware of these incidents occurring every year. This problem should have been dealt with years ago, not yesterday. This Government has been in office for 11 years but we have had to wait until now for this measure. It is an insult to the people of New South Wales for any member of this Government to say that members have become aware of the situation only in recent times. All members have been aware of this problem for many years. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2347
What is even more appalling is that the legal problems have been spelt out to this Government on a number of occasions. The Parliamentary Secretary confessed in the course of his agreement in principle speech that His Honour Judge Ducker of the New South Wales District Court made mention of this situation in his judgment in R v TRR. When was that delivered? Was it in recent times—last week, in the past few days or in March? No, it was delivered on 6 August 2003. The judge said that he considered the disparity in sentence and the low level of maximum sentence in relation to section 35 entitled "grievous harm offences" as irrational, unsustainable and in need of urgent reform—I repeat, urgent reform. This issue was a matter of public record on 6 August 2003; this Government would have been aware of it. When did the Parliamentary Secretary become aware of Judge Ducker's remarks?
Mr Barry Collier: When did you? When you read them in Hansard last night.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: Exactly! There was a Crown prosecution and public judgment. This Government should have been aware of it and it should have taken action on 7 August 2003. An examination of other Australian jurisdictions that have similar offences to maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm indicates that a maximum penalty of seven years is at the low end of maximum penalties imposed. What an extraordinary thing. Would it not have been a good idea on 7 August 2003 to look at the way other jurisdictions were dealing with the issue? We are now dealing with it on 26 September 2007. Surely given that this is a very serious problem that results in death and injuries—it is something that could happen to any member of this House or any member of their family as they are driving along—it should be above party politics and all of us should be engaged in trying to resolve it. The Parliamentary Secretary stated in his agreement in principle speech:
In light of the significance of this change, consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders. In 2005 the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department issued a discussion paper which raised the prospect of replacing the term "maliciousness" throughout the Crimes Act. Formal responses were received from various stakeholders, including the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales.
Will those responses be made available to the general public? Those matters are important and were referred to by the shadow Attorney General. The shadow Attorney General has had considerable experience of these matters and he referred to a case in which he appeared for the Crown before the High Court. One would have thought that any Government that was genuinely interested in dealing with this problem would have provided him with information to enable him to be of assistance and to make a contribution. That is not what happened. The Parliamentary Secretary detailed the extent of the consultation with the shadow Attorney General undertaken by this Government.
I level no criticism at officers of the Attorney General's Department, but I do criticise the Government for failing to consult an eminent person with experience in these matters who could have provided assistance to the people of New South Wales to get this legislation right. This is not simply a legal matter that can be resolved by rearranging words in the statute and increasing the penalties. The people of New South Wales want these actions to be potential offences rather than actual offences. The Parliamentary Secretary's agreement in principle speech contained not one word about any preventive action this Government is taking. It has been aware of the situation for years but it has said nothing about how it intends to prevent rock throwing.
This bill also deals with house breaking. Once again, the Parliamentary Secretary made a confession in the agreement in principle speech. He said that he was now turning to modernising and went on to discuss house breaking. It is 2007! Section 112 of the Crimes Act provides that an offence is committed by any person who breaks, enters and commits a serious indictable offence. Section 113 of the Act repeats the same list in relation to the offence of breaking and entering with intent to commit a serious offence. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the list is lengthy, old-fashioned and potentially contains gaps. What a discovery! It was held in 1970— 37 years ago—that a building belonging to the Commonwealth is not a building belonging to His Majesty or any government department. Surely in 1970 it would have been a matter for Her Majesty.
Mr Barry Collier: The court said that.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I note that the reference contains quotation marks. I acknowledge that the Parliamentary Secretary is pleading not guilty in that case, and that the Government is aware of the royal succession. The agreement in principle speech goes on, "More recently, in December 2003, District Court a judge found that a bowling and recreation club did not fit within any of the described premises." I would have thought that was a matter that should have been attended to back in 2003. We should not have had to wait until September 2007. I can inform the honourable member for Miranda that a bowling club is a significant activity in 2348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
the shire and in New South Wales generally. Members of a bowling club should have been entitled to the further protection that was highlighted in the District Court more than four years ago. As I said, there is not just housebreaking. Matters relating to blackmail are included as sort of an all-embracing, let us throw a few things into the mix bill. As I said, the people of New South Wales should not have had to wait.
We may well find that this legislation is inadequate and has to be revisited. If that happens, it will be a matter of record that there has been a failure of consultation—that the member for Epping, given his background, could well have assisted. The people of New South Wales should have had more adequate consultation. Parliament has not sat for months, so the Government has had months to deal with that. "Recent times" should have included May or June 2007, and the Government should have been working on this legislation during the break, consulting the various stakeholders and the Opposition to get it right. This legislation is crucial to the welfare of the people of New South Wales and their families. It is simply not good enough, and the people of New South Wales have every reason to be angry with the approach taken by this Government.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [11.22 a.m.]: I shall not take much time, I will get straight to the point. I do not have the legal training of the members for Miranda, Epping and Cronulla, but I certainly appreciate the arguments of the members for Epping and Cronulla about the rushing through of this bill. It concerns me that we have not been fully briefed. This is important. Many of these issues raise their ugly head in my electorate of Dubbo. I would have liked to have had placed in front of me all the knowledge that the proponents of the bill have. While I have been away from this place for three months I have been active in my community, but I would have still found the time to research this bill thoroughly.
In Dubbo we currently hold whole-of-government meetings. The member for Tamworth came to last Friday's meeting. He was interested in how they had progressed, because decisions made at those meetings have reduced crime in Dubbo. The attendees at my meetings—me, local government, State government agencies, non-government agencies and Federal government agencies—would also have liked to have known what was in the brief that Government members received about the changes proposed by this bill, although those members were probably not fully conversant with them and would have voted as they were requested to vote. We would have liked to have had full details of that information. For example, paedophiles trying to groom children for sex is a major issue, particularly in the low-income communities.
Mr Barry Collier: Point of order: There is nothing in this bill, as I understand it, about grooming children for sex. It is more about malicious injury and damage. I understand the member is reading from a press release. There is no mention of those sorts of offences in this bill.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order; it is a point of clarification.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: I am reading from the Premier's statement: "Paedophiles who try to groom children for sex". That is where I have taken my comments from. Are rock throwers covered by the bill? I am aware there have been some fatal incidents in various parts of the State, but they have been committed by adults. In the electorate of Dubbo the rock throwers are young children. Where does the bill address the treatment for them? Are juveniles, the under-10s, untouchable? What Act do they come under when they are throwing rocks at buses? The bill also refers to causing grievous bodily harm, people who do not control dogs, and blackmail offences. What types of incidents of blackmail offences is the Government aware of that I am not aware of? I would like to know why those offences had to be included in this major penalty package that was unveiled yesterday.
I need to know these things. If, in a short time, I have to cast my vote I would have to vote against the bill because of my ignorance of what is in the bill, not having been properly briefed. It is being rushed through. It should be explained clearly to me so I can understand an issue before I have to vote for or against it. I will vote for it if I agree with it, but at the moment I cannot, because I do not have enough information. In December 2006 we rushed through legislation concerning riots. Following riots in the following January the legislation was challenged by those who were arrested. A technicality in the law had been overlooked because the legislation was rushed through, and the police were made to look like fools. I do not want to look a fool by voting on an issue that I do not have enough information on. By all means let us proceed with this debate but let us not vote on it until all members of this place are fully informed.
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [11.26 a.m.]: I make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007 and represent the views of the constituents of the electorate of Albury in connection with the particular 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2349
provisions of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. I refer particularly to the throwing of missiles onto roadways. I am concerned that the bill attaches importance only to the commission of the act of causing grievous bodily harm rather than to the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. I refer the Minister to an incident that occurred in Albury only last week which I believe would signify the importance of addressing the issue of intention rather than just the causing of grievous bodily harm.
A gaping hole was discovered in wire mesh on an overpass over the freeway that runs through Albury-Wodonga. This hole was discovered to be as large as a person's head and was clearly cut directly above the northbound lane of the Albury-Wodonga Freeway deliberately for the launching of missiles at vehicles. The cutting of such a hole obviously signifies an intention to cause grievous bodily harm and in itself is not the cause of grievous bodily harm. But I believe that people who indulge in such behaviour obviously exhibit an intent and should fall within the provisions of this bill. People who cut holes in fences on bridges should be charged with something other than malicious damage, given that this bill has been introduced specifically to attack incidents that have been prevalent in New South Wales for far too long but particularly over recent weeks.
This particular hole in the wire mesh was discovered some four weeks ago and was reported to the management company for that freeway and to council and was then referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority. It was only when the local newspaper was contacted and visited that action was taken to repair the hole. That is not good enough. I ask that incidents like this, when reported, receive treatment and attention more immediately, and that the police are alerted so they can endeavour to apprehend the criminal elements who create situations whereby they can launch missiles. We are not concerned merely with rocks; any missile can cause an accident.
I refer to another recent incident in Albury: the launching of a shopping trolley onto the southbound lane between Dean Street and Kenilworth Street pedestrian bridge one weekend. It is uncertain as to how the shopping trolley came to rest on the freeway. It is more likely that it was launched from the side of the road than from the overpass, but that incident again illustrates the fact that we are not dealing only with stones or rocks, dangerous as they are, but with a whole host of missiles. Indeed, any missile that unexpectedly lands on a vehicle travelling at high speed, particularly on the windscreen, is likely to cause significant damage. It is only through sheer luck or the ability of the driver to avoid an accident that grievous bodily harm is avoided.
That goes to the heart of the bill, which looks only at the injury rather than the possibility that an accident was avoided only by good luck or sheer ability. In those situations the alleged perpetrators should fall within the ambit of the bill and should be charged accordingly. Police in the Albury area have had reports of flowerpots and stones being lobbed onto the freeway, but at that stage the perpetrators could only be charged with endangering life. Those incidents were not confined to juveniles, so clearly we need an educational process to be instituted. The bill should cover the launching of all missiles that could cause grievous bodily harm and the intention to cause such injury. In the words of the police, the throwing of these missiles might seem like a fun thing to do, but it can cause serious injury and it can kill.
In October last year an Albury businesswoman said it was only a matter of time before someone was seriously injured or killed by rocks being thrown at cars on the Union Bridge. At that stage that was the bridge across the Murray River linking Albury and Wodonga and was part of the Hume Highway. This lady was still shaking after being showered with glass when a rock struck the windscreen of her vehicle. She was travelling with her son at two o'clock in the afternoon when the rock struck. She described it as being like a gun going off. She said:
We didn't see anything or anyone. The first thing we knew was when it hit the windscreen. We were both showered with glass but neither of us was injured. We were just lucky. If the rock had come through the window, who knows what might have happened?
As it happened, the rock bounced. The lady kept a level head and was particularly lucky. She made the observation that had she swerved or acted impulsively she could have ended up under a B-double, the type of vehicle that constantly uses the Hume Highway. Indeed, the bill is deficient in that it takes no account of the circumstances in which this woman found herself. She and her son were not injured, but she could easily have caused an accident by swerving and forcing a B-double truck to run off the highway into other vehicles, thus causing tremendous carnage. Although kids and others might think that is funny, it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed.
The bill is only now being introduced, despite a litany of concerns that have been raised by the media and by members over many years. It seeks to address an issue that has been looming for some time but has been neglected. In 2000 a Border Mail photographer caught two boys hiding behind the pylon next to the bridge 2350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
lobbing rocks at cars. Two months later there were reports of children throwing rocks from Borella Road towards construction workers driving large machinery, so these incidents are not isolated events in the border area. We know only too well of fatalities and serious incidents that have occurred over many years throughout New South Wales. It is time for action. The bill is long overdue and it should take into account intention, not only the actual causation of grievous bodily harm.
Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [11.34 a.m.]: Opposition speakers have referred to the tardiness of the bill. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but we ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address in reply why it has taken so long to come before the House and why it is now being rushed through. My contribution relates to problems in my electorate, particularly in the Purfleet area. Police responded to a letter I wrote following a rock-throwing outbreak in Purfleet in June of this year. They stated that such incidents had been a problem in the area for 20 years. That highlights the extent of the problem, which is generally caused by juveniles, or sometimes by juveniles imitating older people who throw rocks. In the June outbreak there were 10 reported incidents of rocks being hurled. An article in the Manning River Times of 27 June 2007 states:
Some Manning River residents who contacted the Times say they are now too afraid of being hit by rocks to drive between the two roundabouts at night.
The alternate route to Taree would require them to travel a considerable distance further, but some people have been doing that to avoid the Purfleet area. One lady whose vehicle was hit by a rock said that she and her husband stopped the vehicle and discovered that it had been hit by pavers on the passenger doors, the side skirt and the bonnet. She said:
It's beyond a joke out there.
She was afraid that it was only a matter of time before someone is killed. Valerie from Wingham said that she was driving between the two roundabouts on Sunday night about seven o'clock with her two-year-old son in the back seat when she heard the thud of an object. She assumed it was a rock hitting the passenger door about 20 centimetres below the window. She said:
My biggest fear is that it is going to hit the window when there is a little child in the back—glass could go in their eyes or anything.
They are quotes from people who were involved in incidents at that time. I made representations to the police on behalf of Mr Peacock, who said he was the fifth car that night that had been hit by rocks. He reported the incident to the police, who took the matter seriously. However, the difficulty was catching people in the act. Mr Peacock said:
I was only lucky that the rocks or pavers … that was thrown did not go through the window and hit my wife.
He had $2,000 worth of damage done to his car. Police have attempted to solve the problem but it is difficult to identify the perpetrators. Police caught and took action against the perpetrator, who, unfortunately, was a 10-year-old child. The area commander said in his letter to me:
It is well accepted that the majority of offenders are juveniles that live in, or frequent the Purfleet area. The offenders are generally Aboriginal juveniles under the age of 10 years.
There has been reference to education. I give the police yet another tick. The commander also said:
The Manning Great Lakes Local Area Command's Youth Liaison Officer, Senior Constable Ray Slade and the Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers have spoken to numerous other suspects and the parents in an attempt to cease the practice. We also co-sponsored a local 10 week education program which targeted the juveniles and attempted to educate them on the dangers of rock throwing. Unfortunately, this program stopped after 7 weeks due to the failure of the juveniles to turn up for the voluntary program.
In the circumstances that was unfortunate. Obviously this is a real problem statewide, and in parochial terms I must say that it has been a huge problem in my electorate for many years. I am not sure that this legislation will stop it. It will send a very strong message to the community and to those involved that finally the Government has become serious about the problem and is attempting to do something about it. I can only hope that there is a better educative program to try to stop younger people from taking part in this activity. They must be taught what their responsibilities are and the consequences of their actions. In particular, their parents must be brought to account; they must be part of the cure as well.
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.44 p.m.]: I endorse the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. The explanatory note identifies only in general terms some of the substantial issues in the bill. On the 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2351
surface the bill looks good, but I hope that when legislation such as this comes before the House in the future the explanatory notes go into greater detail. The explanatory note certainly refers to the increases in penalties for causing grievous bodily harm as a result of rock throwing. My electorate on the mid North Coast is alongside the electorate of the member who has just spoken, and I confirm what he said: rock throwing is a real issue. In the Taree community, with the Pacific Highway passing nearby, rock throwing causes the community a lot of concern at various times. The bill makes important changes in many areas of the law and I hope they will make a difference.
The other point I wish to make is that, of all the legislation we deal with in this House, legislation dealing with the criminal law is one area in which it makes sense to follow national principles. I hope we all agree with that. A great deal of work has been done by various Australian governments to develop uniform criminal codes. Without having gone through the detail in the bill I assume—and I certainly hope—that the amendments in it fit in with the national reforms that the States and Commonwealth are attempting to implement in an effort to develop uniform criminal codes. I hope the difficulties caused by State boundaries in regard to the prosecution of criminal acts are long behind us. I hope the reforms in the bill are not just the reforms of a barrister who is now the Attorney General, and that they actually fit in with national principles and with the direction that the States and the Commonwealth are taking in regard to the criminal law. With that reservation, I certainly endorse the direction of the bill.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.46 a.m.]: I speak briefly to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007 because of a couple of incidents that have happened in the electorate of Hornsby. The object of the bill is to amends the Crimes Act 1900 by increasing penalties for the reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm, by replacing "malicious" as a fault element of offences with the modern fault element of "intention" or "recklessness", by modernising blackmail offences and by making other reforms of the criminal law. The bill increases the penalty for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm from 7 years to 10 years and from 10 years to 14 years for an offence committed in company, replaces existing blackmail and extortion offences with offences based on the Model Criminal Code, ensures that for all offences under the Act the infliction of grievous bodily harm includes causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease, and extends the offence of breaking and entering dwelling-houses or certain other commercial or government buildings and committing, or intending to commit, a serious indictable offence to buildings of any kind.
On at least two occasions—and there are perhaps more that I do not know about—rock and egg throwing incidents in my electorate have had the potential to cause a great deal of harm. The first of these incidents involved a driver and the second involved two young women who were getting into their car after leaving a friend's house at Mount Colah. On the first occasion a young woman was driving her small vehicle home along the Pacific Highway. She was about to turn left into Beryl Avenue in Mount Colah when suddenly there was a huge crash on her windscreen, which caused a great deal of alarm. This was the result of perpetrators throwing a rock which could have caused serious injury to the young woman. She was lucky that the rock did not enter her vehicle. If it had done so it could have occasioned serious injury. The windscreen cracked and sustained considerable damage.
Rock-throwing does not have to be from an overhead bridge. On this occasion the rock was thrown from adjacent bushland on to the roadway, the perpetrators obviously taking advantage of the fact that the driver was slowing down to make the left-hand turn. It could have been a bullet. The matter was reported to the police, but the perpetrators had every opportunity to get away. In the second incident eggs were thrown from a vehicle towards two young women who were leaving a friend's house in the same area of Mount Colah. One of the young women sustained severe welts to her legs and arms. The second was wearing a tracksuit, which tended to reduce the amount of damage. Those uncooked eggs were obviously designed to smash upon impact and inflict pain. If they had hit one of those young women in the eye it could have led to a loss of sight. The bill also relates to many other aspects of the law, but it is extremely important to emphasise the unacceptability of missiles being thrown. Missiles can be thrown from places other than overhead bridges and they can be objects other than rocks. Anything that is thrown from any place with the intention to cause mischief can be extremely dangerous.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.49 a.m.]: I endorse the comments that have been made thus far by my colleagues in relation to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. The object of the bill is to increase penalties for causing grievous bodily harm as a result of the throwing of rocks or other missiles from 7 years to 10 years and from 10 years to 14 years for an offence committed in company. The bill also removes "malicious" as a fault element of offences under the Act and replaces it with the modern fault element of "intention" or "recklessness". The shadow Attorney General has made a comprehensive contribution to the debate. He outlined the many areas in relation to these offences that he believes need amendment or correction. I will not go over those again because he has done an excellent job. 2352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
The bill ensures that the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm includes causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease. It also extends the offence of breaking and entering dwelling-houses or certain other commercial or government buildings and committing, or intending to commit, a serious indictable offence to buildings of any kind. As the member for Hornsby and other members have said, a spate of rock throwing attacks has been taking place across the State. I regularly travel along the Hume freeway—I know the member for Monaro frequently does as well—and this spate of attacks is a serious issue for all commuters at some point or another.
Just yesterday I was driving along William Street, through the Kings Cross tunnel and over the other side towards Ocean Street. On a pedestrian overpass a fellow was leaning over with something in his hand. As I was aware of this bill coming before the House, I wondered whether a missile was about to hit my windscreen. He only had a camera—although if he dropped it, it could have caused some damage—and there was obviously no ill intent. Many things can be done to deter this dangerous behaviour. Since 1999 or 2000 specially made grilles have been installed on the overpasses along the Hume Freeway to stop people throwing rocks.
Much more can be done to deter people from throwing rocks, particularly from overpasses onto heavy traffic, such as at either end of the Cross City Tunnel and exit roads and along William Street. The Government should erect more grilles to discourage delinquents and others from throwing missiles and risking the lives and limbs of drivers and passengers. I raise that point because it has not yet been canvassed in this debate. If we take these positive steps to deter this type action in the long run it will save a lot of taxpayers' money. As I said at the outset, the shadow Attorney General did an excellent job in speaking to the bill and I do not need to add further to his comments.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.53 a.m.]: I speak briefly to the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. As previous Coalition speakers have said, the position, in a broad sense, has been put very effectively by the shadow Attorney General. For the reasons given, the Coalition does not oppose the bill. I speak to the bill because the incident that gave rise to it, or at least the amendments relating to malicious damage caused by a missile, occurred in my electorate. When the incident became public the Northern Beaches Local Area Command responded effectively. I acknowledge Inspector Paul Devaney and the numerous police officers who responded to the incident on a cold and wet night at Allambie Heights. I have an interest in this matter because John Marinovic is a young man who is extremely well known to me. In fact, John, who is a great basketballer, has spent many, many hours in my house over the past few years.
On many occasions he has been in the company of me and my family. I was quite disturbed to learn that a person had thrown a rock and injured one of our young people on the northern beaches, but I was particularly disturbed when the injured person was someone I knew so well. I was pleased that the police were out doing the work that we expect from them in difficult circumstances on a cold night. I formally thank the various officers, both junior and senior, who went through the grass verge off Allambie Road under spotlight. They did an amazing job, responding in very difficult circumstances some hours after the event, once they had been notified of the offence. On behalf of the community I also formally thank the police from the Northern Beaches Local Area Command, particularly Inspector Paul Devaney, for the work they did and continue to do. I have heard reports that they are still working very hard in the North Curl Curl area to find out who threw the rock that caused the major injury to Johnny Marinovic.
There is a lesson that young people can learn from this incident. It seems that some skylarking was going on before the rock was thrown. Year 12 students are now coming to the end of their school life, not just on the northern beaches but right across New South Wales. I issue this warning to young people right across the State: They might think it is funny to go out and throw eggs or do something silly, but people may respond in a wholly inappropriate and extremely dangerous way. Egg throwing can be extremely dangerous. Throwing any object from a vehicle is a dangerous pursuit. Young people who will be celebrating the end of their school life in the next week or so should think about that and avoid any action that potentially will hurt them or others.
I have raised an issue with the Government about the bill. Perhaps at some stage the Government could address my concerns. About two years ago I was on the receiving end of a rock. Whilst driving along the Cahill Expressway, at the west end as I passed under a bridge, I was afraid that an object would hit my car. The legislation addresses the aspect of grievous bodily harm. I believe the legislation needs to be reviewed and that throwing any object at a car should be made an offence with a substantial deterrent. When it occurred to me I was distracted from what I was doing. It is a horrible experience to have an object thrown at you. I was lucky it did not do major damage to my car. I stopped and looked to see who had thrown the object. In normal circumstances on roadways it is extremely dangerous for people to throw anything at a vehicle. I suggest that at 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2353
some point the Government needs to examine whether there is sufficient deterrent against throwing an object at a moving vehicle, let alone causing damage, as is referred to in section 35, which has been amended with increased penalties. Section 35 (1) states:
A person who, in the company of another person or persons, recklessly causes grievous bodily harm to any person is guilty of an offence.
I believe we should go one step further and provide that throwing an object at a car should be sufficient to warrant an appropriate penalty. I raise that issue with the Government and ask that we address it in the future. On my behalf and on behalf of the local community I wish Johnny Marinovic and his family the best. I know that his medical condition is improving and, hopefully, he will be out of hospital very soon. On behalf of the community I extend our best wishes to Johnny and his family, particularly his parents, Sharon and Mark Marinovic, and his sister. I am sure they have been through a horrific experience. No-one would want their son to be in that situation.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.58 a.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Epping, Cronulla, Dubbo, Albury, Myall Lakes, Port Macquarie, Hornsby, Burrinjuck and Wakehurst for their contributions to the debate. Throwing rocks is dangerous and stupid and the people who throw them are not just cowards: they are criminals who should face tough jail terms. I wish to respond to issues that were raised by various speakers. In recent times a spate of rock throwing has occurred, as was acknowledged by the member for Burrinjuck. The Government is concerned about the recent attention this issue has gained in the media. There is a strong possibility that people may be attempted to commit copycat offences.
The Government is specifically concerned that this type of activity may occur during the fast-approaching school holiday period. Many New South Wales families will be on the roads over the next two weeks. The Government is determined to send a clear and strong message that this dangerous and idiotic activity should stop. Members will note that the new provisions and increased penalties relating to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm commence on the assent of the bill. The Government is of the view that they should be in place by the end of the week.
I note that the Opposition supports the provisions of this bill, which are about sending a strong and clear message to the community in relation to not only rock throwing but other offences also. The member for Myall Lakes and the member for Port Macquarie wanted to know whether changes to the legislation reflect changes to the national criminal codes. I am advised that that is so and that the extortion offences outlined in the bill are very good examples of that. This bill needed to be passed urgently because of public concern and attention drawn by the media recently to the spate of rock throwing in the community.
In relation to amendments being dealt with separately to increase penalties and to delete the word "maliciously", those members who have read the bill will clearly see that there are two sets of amendments. These are interwoven and relate to section 35. The Government's view is that these amendments need to travel together in order to minimise confusion and avoid the undesirable result of having to amend the same provision twice in the same parliamentary session.
The member for Wakehurst raised the issue of a standalone offence in relation to the act of throwing things at vehicles. It is my understanding that the Attorney General and the police Minister are looking at this issue. All members raised particular concerns about cases that have arisen in the circumstances of rock throwing and other unlawful activities that have occurred in their electorates. I point out that there have always been offences to deal with these types of criminal activities from murder down to lesser crimes, as the shadow Attorney General indicated. I understand that the historical case of Sutcliffe the shadow Attorney General referred to was dealt with under the charge of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. But for many, many years other offences from murder down to manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, malicious damage and assault have existed.
The member for Albury raised a number of issues about people cutting holes in fences to gain access to places from where they can throw rocks off rail bridges and so on. I point out to the member for Albury that there are a number of offences with which persons can be charged in the circumstances he described—malicious damage and common assault are just two. The law of attempt is very relevant also to those offences. Perhaps the member for Albury should read the bill a little more closely: it takes into account intention and recklessness. The member for Dubbo spoke of certain events in her electorate. Those matters also could be dealt with now under the existing criminal code. 2354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
The member for Cronulla raised the issue of penalties. Assault penalties have been in place since 1900. Whether the Liberal Party should have amended the penalties when it was in government is a matter for the Liberal Party. It has had opportunities to deal with the concerns it has, to change the term "maliciously" and so on. The responses by the member for Cronulla and the shadow Attorney General show again that the Opposition has no plan. The Opposition has no ideas—nothing. But the Government is doing something about this particular problem.
Another issue raised was in relation to bail. The Government is examining the operation and effectiveness of the Bail Act. The review will look at the general issue of bail presumptions. Magistrates have certain discretions under the Bail Act, and amendments to the Bail Act are clearly outside the scope of this bill, which refers to another Act. The term "maliciousness" has always caused problems for judges, lawyers, defendants, the general public—
Mr Brad Hazzard: And the Opposition.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: —the Opposition and the media too. If the shadow Attorney General thinks the media have problems with the Bail Act, having read out the definition of "malicious" as it appears in section 5 of the Crimes Act, he will have even more problems with the term "malicious". Judicial criticisms of "malicious" have suggested that the term be replaced with modern mental fault elements such as "recklessly" or "intentionally". That is what we have done. No court or legal practitioner has ever suggested that "wantonly" or any other archaic term should be used. In fact, it was quite often difficult to get a conviction even for offences such as wanton driving, which was mentioned by the shadow Attorney General. When we refer to the model criminal code and the development of the criminal law in line with the national code these terms are certainly not used. We are making changes in line with changes made to the national code.
Much has been made about consultation. Changing the law in relation to the term "malicious" is a change of significance and consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders. In 2005 the Attorney General's Department first proposed the reform and the Director of Public Prosecutions was invited to comment. Formal responses were received from the various stakeholders including the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the Law Society, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. I am advised that there was general support amongst all respondents, with the idea of deleting all reference to the word "maliciously" in existing offences and instead inserting the term "recklessly" or "intentionally", as required.
The Director of Public Prosecutions was invited to comment. The shadow Attorney General stated that if he had had the time he would have looked at it. The member for Cronulla suggested that, had the shadow Attorney General been given the opportunity to consider it, it would have been a good thing, given his experience. I do not question the level and degree of experience of the shadow Attorney General, who is a Senior Counsel and was senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. But, although the shadow Attorney General claims he had no knowledge of the discussion paper and that he would have had a look at it if he had had time, the fact is that the shadow Attorney General was Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions at the time we sought advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Surely Mr Cowdery and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions talked to each other and surely the shadow Attorney General had every opportunity as Deputy Director of Prosecutions to have input into that discussion paper. Perhaps the shadow Attorney General, as he is now, was on leave, but I would have thought the Director of Public Prosecutions would have consulted his right-hand man, Mr Greg Smith, SC, at the time. It is trite for the shadow Attorney General to say in this House that he did not know about the matter, that he did not have an opportunity to look at it and that nobody spoke to him about it.
A crossbench briefing was provided yesterday to the Independent members of the House, and I understand that Mrs Fardell could have participated. However, I am sure that if she has any further inquiries or would like to discuss the issue she can do so with officers of the Attorney General's Department. The Government believes that this bill sends a strong message that this dangerous and idiotic activity should stop and that the residents of New South Wales travelling during the school holidays have every right to do so in safety. I again note that the Opposition supports the bill and that it sees it as an important measure. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2355
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
MOTOR DEALERS AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 27 June 2007.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.11 p.m.]: The Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2007 has two main purposes: First, to eliminate duplication of forms filled out by motor dealers transferring second-hand or demonstration cars to another motor dealer; and, secondly, to include demonstrator vehicles within the definition of second-hand motor vehicles.
New South Wales has a large and important motor vehicle wholesale, retail and repair industry. It is predominantly made up of small businesses. Of 20,000 businesses, 96.2 per cent have fewer than 20 employees, 11 .3 per cent of businesses are in retailing and the other 88.7 per cent are in vehicle services. Half of all businesses are non-employing; in other words, the operators are self-employed people. The other 10,000 businesses employ 84,600 people, with 29 per cent working in retail and the other 71 per cent in services. So the motor vehicle sector is of huge significance to the New South Wales economy and the wellbeing of those reliant on the industry, whether as consumers or for their incomes.
The Liberal Party and The Nationals hold the industry in high regard and thank the businesses for their continuous efforts to improve protections and standards for consumers. We particularly acknowledge the tireless efforts of the Motor Traders Association, which has for many decades worked to secure sensible and fair reforms for industry that also benefit consumers. Let us not forget that businesses want happy customers, and an enormous effort has been made by the car industry to develop long-term relationships with customers and to secure repeat business. This is healthy for employment, consumers and the ongoing viability of a very competitive and challenging industry.
The Minister indicated in her second reading speech that this legislation is the result of a 2006 Small Business Regulatory Review Taskforce review of red tape in the motor industry. Businesses involved in the review included new and used car dealers, smash repairers, service stations, auto electricians, tyre dealers, tow truck operators and auto dismantlers. The Motor Traders Association and the Service Station Association were represented on the task force. The report was completed in July 2006 and the Government said it fully supported the recommendations. Today is 26 September 2007, so it has taken more than a year for these matters to be debated in the Parliament. Perhaps we should not complain, because plenty of other matters date back before 2006 on which the Government has pledged action but which are stuck in the overflowing ministerial in-tray. The reforms to the Retirement Villages Act, regulation of mortgage brokers and substantial changes to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal are but a few matters that have turned the residents of New South Wales blue from holding their breath waiting for action promised years ago by the New South Wales Labor Government.
The Government says it supports the findings of the task force that reviewed the motor industry, but the Minister has not provided detail to the House about progress in implementing those recommendations. The bill is welcome in that it reduces duplication of forms and clarifies the definition of a "demonstrator", and the Opposition supports that. However, I would appreciate the Minister telling the House in her reply what has happened to the other recommendations that were "fully supported" more than a year ago. They included: eliminating specified equipment lists for categories of motor vehicle repairers; addressing anomalies in the existing categories of motor vehicle repairers to address uncertainty and confusion; writing to the Federal Minister concerning environmental issues; and recommendations in relation to occupational health and safety, WorkCover, business names registration, the sharing of information across agencies including Commerce, the Attorney General's Department and the Cabinet Office; and greater consistency in inspections by local government and New South Wales Government agencies. A lot of work has been undertaken by the task force 2356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
and it is important, more than a year after its release, that the Minister has followed through. Will she inform the Parliament of what has been achieved?
This bill deals with the discovery made by the task force that motor dealers had to fill out different forms for different government agencies that in effect asked for the same information. The bill addresses that and reduces the number of prescribed forms from 19 to 15. It will particularly affect the wholesale market by reducing red tape for inter-trade dealing. Given that there are 600,000 inter-trade transfers a year, the Opposition welcomes this improvement. It is also anxious that the Fair Trading Commission follow through on these reforms by monitoring industry compliance to ensure Form 2s—known as police books—are kept up to date with accurate vehicle identifiers because this is where opportunities may exist for criminals to enter incorrect information.
I understand the Fair Trading Commission has assured the motor industry that vehicles known as "demonstrators" can still be marketed and that stamp duty exemptions still apply. I also understand from the Minister's second reading speech that warranties for demonstrator vehicles that are more generous than the statutory warranties for used cars will not be affected. Businesses in the motor industry are all concerned to eliminate fraud and theft, not only to ensure the good reputation of dealers but also because dealers are often the targets and the victims of criminals rebirthing cars and winding back odometers and other unscrupulous behaviour.
The Motor Traders Association has worked tirelessly over the years to make positive suggestions. Many relate to our state-based system of regulation and more needs to be done to eliminate crime that is occurring because of gaps between government agencies and between States. It is all very well for governments to tell industry what they must do to prevent opportunities for crime, but it is incredibly frustrating when a creaky old Government allows great gaping loopholes in its own systems that are obviously and easily being exploited by criminals. Government must play its part if the crime prevention effort is to work as a whole. Minister Burney has said a great deal in this debate about the importance of "written off vehicle data". Mr David Smith of the Motor Traders Association has written to the Opposition asking:
Given the significance of this matter, why is it that New South Wales REVS does not carry all or the most up to date information relating to the written off vehicle history of a motor vehicle?
The MTA highlighted to the Government in October 2006 that this was occurring and when a response finally did arrive in 2007 the answer was that the system would be modified "early 2007" to provide greater protection.
I have been advised by the Office of Fair Trading that the system is currently undergoing testing on an upgraded service, but consumers and businesses still do not currently have access to all written off vehicle data via REVS. While this issue has been in the "too hard basket" countless unsuspecting consumers and businesses have found that they have done their REVS check only to discover at a later time that their vehicle is listed on a written off vehicle register in another jurisdiction, usually Queensland ...
In addition to this, vehicles that are written off in another jurisdiction are all too readily accepted for re-registration by the New South Wales RTA, albeit as a high risk vehicle. The RTA knows they have been written off, yet REVS does not.
This bill is apparently all about cutting red tape. I respectfully suggest the Government has a very long way to go to get its house in order, to reduce inefficient regulation, to make the system operate effectively and to ensure proper protection of consumers and businesses. Finally, I note the Government's statement in the summary of the task force report:
The Taskforce believes that the best way to find out about small business regulation is by asking small business operators.
The Opposition understands that, when asked, both small business and industry associations have been telling the Government a move from 12-month licences to three-year licences would be a major improvement and would reduce red tape and regulation burden. It is pointed out that builders have three-year licences so why not motor dealers and motor vehicle repairers? This is not just about the Minister asking; it is also about listening to the answer. This request for three-year licensing has been made for a number of years and it has simply been ignored. Why? I hope the Minister will explain her position, as it seems wooden headed and inflexible, at a time when the Government seeks to brag about cutting red tape. The Opposition supports this bill. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say in reply, in particular in answer to the questions I have raised. On the issue of licensing we reserve our right to pursue the matter further in another place, depending upon the Minister's response today.
Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [12.20 p.m.]: The ability of small business owners to get on with the job of running their businesses with the minimum amount of government red tape is an ongoing concern for 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2357
the private sector. Of course, any attempt to reduce regulation and the overall red tape burden on small business must be carefully balanced with the need for appropriate oversighting and controls. The motor trade continues to be an area of high risk for consumers, and can be used as a path to legitimising and disposing of stolen, written-off and encumbered vehicles. This bill sets an even and fair-handed approach. Dealerships are mostly made up of small businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. They are less able to absorb the cost of meeting unnecessary red tape.
Any reforms that lessen the burden of paperwork on small businesses are to be applauded. In this regard, the amalgamation, merging and streamlining of a number of forms as set out by the Minister, plus the complete abolition of others, are welcome changes. The forms and registers prescribed by the Act contain a lot of valuable information for consumers. Advice on any statutory warranty that may apply, identifier details about the vehicle, when a pink slip should be provided and advice on written-off status and any encumbrances is provided. The changes ensure that this information is still provided. The changes also ensure that police and Fair Trading investigators can continue to enforce the law. Each form and register provides an auditable trail of a vehicle's history. Forms can be used to help in the investigation of odometer interference, consumer fraud and car theft and re-birthing. The changes will still allow the information to be accessed from a register directly or through the information held by the Roads and Traffic Authority. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions on this bill. The Motor Dealers Amendment Bill introduces a number of changes to the record-keeping requirements. It is aimed at cutting red tape across this important sector. At the moment, under the Act dealers are required to keep a number of prescribed forms. These forms include a variety of different registers of the vehicles they are buying, selling and transferring. The data stored in the registers is vital for investigating consumer fraud and to help stamp out the trade in stolen cars and spare parts. Currently there are 19 separate prescribed forms under the Act. The Small Business Regulation Review Taskforce recommended that the Office of Fair Trading look at each of these to identify opportunities for simplification and reduction.
This bill includes a number of changes to the law that will significantly reduce the burden for dealers and result in the abolition of four of the 19 prescribed forms and reduce the usage of one other. It is important to note that the change will not impact on the law enforcement capabilities of Fair Trading, the Roads and Traffic Authority or the police. Fair Trading has already been in contact with the authority about the information it collects to ensure that required data is collected and both the police and Fair Trading will be able to access the authority's database when conducting investigations.
The Office of Fair Trading has indicated that the changes will bring about an estimated $1.17 million saving for dealers in processing, printing, handling, storage and retrieval costs associated with this high number of transactions. It is certainly a win-win position for industry and consumers. The changes should have a significant and immediate impact on reducing red tape for motor dealers. As I mentioned, the changes have been discussed with various authorities, including the Roads and Traffic Authority, the New South Wales Police Force, the Motor Traders Association, the Institute of Automotive Mechanical Engineers and the chairperson of the Motor Vehicle Industry Advisory Council. All have indicated support for the measures, which are designed to cut red tape.
The member for Bega, in his contribution for the Opposition, raised a number of issues including why the Government has not adopted the first recommendation of the task force to reduce the numbers of categories of licence? The Office of Fair Trading examined the various licence categories under the Act and I am advised that it found that only around 1 per cent of licensees would be affected should there be a reduction in licence categories, with the overwhelming majority of dealers only having one category. Having several different categories of licence helps licensees choose the licensing option that best suits their particular needs. As would be expected, there is a higher level of regulation of dealers who are able to sell vehicles to the public and they must also contribute to the Motor Dealers Compensation Fund. However, for wholesalers, who only sell to other licensed dealers, there is no consumer risk, so it is appropriate that they do not have to contribute to the fund, and they face less burdensome regulatory requirements.
Recommendation 2 of the task force is about records for auto dismantlers being streamlined. Records kept by auto dismantlers are required particularly by the New South Wales Police Force in its fight to combat motor vehicle theft and rebirthing. It is essential in these investigations to be able to trace the path of a vehicle and its parts to prevent criminal gangs from breaking a vehicle up and onselling the parts or using the parts and identifiers to give a vehicle a new identity. The police have advised that the current record-keeping requirements are absolutely necessary to investigate these matters. The police also note that the current requirements are not 2358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
particularly burdensome. The Government is committed to ensuring that the police have whatever tools they require to investigate crime, particularly car theft. For this reason the Government has followed the advice of the New South Wales Police Force and decided that the current requirements are necessary.
Recommendation 5 of the review is that the Office of Fair Trading examine existing classes of repairer in order to address anomalies. Movement towards a national approach for the qualifications for licensees in the motor vehicle repair sector has been underway for some time. New South Wales has had to wait for finalisation of the new national framework before proceeding with changes to this State's scheme. A review of the Motor Vehicle Repairs Regulation is due to be undertaken this year. The regulation spells out the categories of trade certification. Recommendation 8 of the review, that Fair Trading should work with other State and Commonwealth agencies to streamline the registration of business names and business numbers, is being addressed through the Council of Australian Governments, which is working towards a nationally consistent scheme.
The member for Bega also mentioned written-off vehicle data with the register of encumbered vehicles system. The New South Wales system is working with the Commonwealth and other States to develop a national personal property securities register, which will take over all the similar State-based systems including the New South Wales system. The project was approved in principle by the Council of Australian Governments, and the Commonwealth has provided budget funding for the project. The Commonwealth is proposing implementation during 2009. The Commonwealth has recently confirmed that it will be implementing a national exchange of vehicle and driver information systems access as part of the national personal property security system, which was the key consumer protection issue raised by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. That measure will benefit consumers, dealers and financiers. Of course, New South Wales will continue to be a strong participant in this worthwhile national project.
The member for Bega said that the Government was not going far enough in reducing red tape. The reviews of individual industries that the Government has undertaken have produced positive outcomes for this industry and other industries. The Government has undertaken a positive program to deal individually with the industries. It is not often possible to use a broad-brush approach to remove red tape. It is important to review each industry individually. This positive approach has been welcomed by the industries that have been reviewed. It shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place for consumers while at the same time minimising red tape for small business.
Labor takes this approach in contrast to the Federal Labor Government, which over the past 10 years has introduced more red tape when it promised to reduce it. When small business complains about red tape inevitably it refers to the business activity statement [BAS]. That is a practical difference between the Coalition approach and the Labor approach. The Howard Government has encumbered business with BAS while the State Labor Government has introduced important changes to industry in an endeavour to streamline red tape while protecting the rights of consumers. I commend the bill to the House and thank the Opposition for its support.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT (CANCELLATION OF INCORPORATION) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 27 June 2007.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.23 p.m.]: The Associations Incorporation Amendment (Cancellation of Incorporation) Bill 2007 aims to streamline processes for the cancellation of registration of 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2359
incorporated associations that have become defunct. There are more than 39,000 registered associations in New South Wales; 60 per cent have a turnover of less than $100,000 and 2 per cent have a turnover exceeding $500,000. Over the years many smaller associations have become defunct. The definition is that they have not met for three years, have not filed a return for three years and/or do not have a public officer. Many do not bother to cancel their registration.
This bill makes it easier for the Commissioner for Fair Trading to cancel registration of associations that are clearly no longer operating. The current provision says a decision to cancel a registration can only be reversed if it is discovered that the Commissioner for Fair Trading has made a mistake. Anyone who has watched even one episode of Yes Minister will realise that the requirement to make a finding that bureaucracy has made a mistake is an almost impossible task for bureaucracy to undertake. Therefore, it might be argued that asking Fair Trading to agree that it has made a mistake is an insurmountable barrier to reversing a decision to cancel. It is also an unnecessary barrier, and we have no objection to its removal, as it would seem to be in the interests of efficiency and will benefit the associations themselves.
The bill includes a requirement that the most senior officer of an association who is able to be located should be sent advice by registered post. This is an important safeguard and is welcomed by the Opposition. The Minister is heralding this legislation as a great leap forward for associations. I remind her and the Government that the bulk of recommendations are made after a substantial review. I note that the consultation paper was released in April 2003 and it is now September 2007. This is not the main response to the review and certainly such minor progress after four years is not something the Government should be celebrating. The briefing on the bill states:
The amendments are part of a raft of reforms to the legislation, however it was decided that the necessary technical and administrative amendments to the non-voluntary cancellation provisions contained in this Bill should be dealt with first.
Why? What does that all mean? Where is this final report and why are the reforms so delayed? The Minister is not in the Chamber so she is obviously not going to reply to this bill. Therefore, I urge the Government to explain to the House what is going on in this important area of policy that affects tens of thousands of volunteers and charitable organisations across New South Wales. Regional electorates such as the electorate of the member for Murray-Darling and my electorate have a wonderful army of volunteers and charitable organisations that do enormous work across the community. One need only examine the recent data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to learn that on average the proportion of the population involved in voluntary community work and charitable organisations is 10 percent higher in country New South Wales than in metropolitan areas. That shows the dedication of volunteers in country areas. Across the State 26 per cent of the population is involved in some form of voluntary work and it is pivotal that strong incorporated associations back up those volunteers so that they can continue to provide support to the wider community.
Mr John Williams: Not be bogged down by red tape.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: And are not bogged down in red tape, which is usually introduced by members opposite, who are experts in red tape. The Government owes the volunteer sector a more transparent and efficient administration of the Act. I look forward to a more fulsome explanation as to priorities and progress, particularly as this matter has been ongoing since 2003. I await with interest the response from the Minister.
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.37 p.m.], in reply: The Associations Incorporation Act 1984 provides members of our community who are involved in sporting, education, recreation and community service clubs an inexpensive way of incorporating. Incorporation allows these community members to take advantage of the invaluable legal safeguard of limited liability that incorporation provides. I understand that the proposed amendments contained in the amendment bill arise out of an internal review of the Act undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading. I understand also that further proposals for amendment will be contained in an exposure draft bill, which will be publicly available for consultation before the end of the year.
Members and officeholders in small, non-profit organisations generally work many hours in a voluntary capacity for the good of their community. As with most volunteer positions, however, when their job is done they move on. Unfortunately, I understand that this results in many associations still being registered under the Act but no longer actually being in operation. It is important that the Act provides a mechanism for the cancellation of these associations that is effective and streamlined and is in keeping with similar provisions in other jurisdictions' legislation and for other forms of incorporation, like cooperatives and corporations. 2360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Currently the non-voluntary cancellation provisions contained within the Act are overly complicated and they have made the cancellation of large numbers of defunct associations cost prohibitive for the registering of cooperatives and associations.
It is important that these defunct associations are removed from the register, as many negative outcomes result from having associations that are no longer operating continuing to be registered under the Act. For example, other non-profit organisations that may wish to incorporate under the same name as a defunct, but still registered, association will not be able to do so as long as that non-operating association remains registered under the Act. The public register of incorporated associations, which the Registry of Cooperatives and Associations is legally required to maintain, cannot be accurate whilst such associations continue to be registered under the Act.
The amendments contained in this bill will streamline the notice of cancellation and the cancellation provisions of the Act in line with similar provisions in the legislation of other jurisdictions and for other forms of incorporation. This will allow the Registry of Cooperatives and Associations to initiate the necessary notices of proposed cancellation to those associations who are no longer operational. I note that the amendment to the bill will also seek to ensure that associations are directly notified of any proposal to cancel their incorporation and they will have at least 28 days in which to respond to that notice.
I also note that the bill introduces an important safety net provision, which allows the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading to reinstate the incorporation of an association if satisfied that it has been incorrectly cancelled. Therefore, I am pleased to lend the bill my full support. It will ensure that the legislation continues to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
STANDARD TIME AMENDMENT (DAYLIGHT SAVING) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 27 June 2007.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.43 p.m.]: I am not leading for the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will take the opportunity to speak to the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill 2007. The bill is to extend the daylight saving period so that it will start in each year on the first Sunday in October, rather than the last Sunday in October, and end on the first Sunday in April, rather than the last Sunday in March, in the following year. The bill also provides as a transitional arrangement that the next daylight saving period will commence on 28 October 2007, in accordance with existing arrangements, and end on 6 April 2008, in accordance with the proposed new arrangements.
There are several clauses in the bill. Clause 1 sets out the title of the proposed Act. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on the date of assent. Clause 3 is a formal provision that gives effect to the Standard Time Act 1987 as set out in Schedule 1. Clause 4 provides for the repeal of the proposed Act after all the amendments made by the proposed Act have commenced. Once the amendments have commenced, the proposed Act will depend on section 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987, which provides that the repeal of an amending Act does not affect the amendments made by the Act.
This particular bill, as I understand, is designed to bring New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland into line. There has been much debate in rural communities about daylight saving. The fact is that daylight saving was introduced in England as an economic measure during the war, I understand to save on power and energy. Given the climate change debate that is raging at the moment, the fact that New South Wales is really 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2361
struggling to meet the energy demands of a developing economy, and that other States are barely being able to keep up with capacity needs, I do not believe this amendment will make an enormous contribution to the saving of power and energy. What it will do is align the States so that there will be real continuity for business transactions.
In my electorate I have certainly asked questions about extending daylight saving and about this particular bill. I am on record as having voted in favour each time we have had to amend the Act because of special circumstances. I recall that the Olympic Games was one occasion when there was a requirement to bring forward daylight saving. I think that was a reasonable and sensible thing to do. There is much discussion about the States and federalism and about the States trying to keep control of certain issues. There are issues that perhaps the Federal Government should be responsible for and others that the State should be responsible for. I think that debate will probably occur more vigorously after the Federal election, regardless of the result. I think it needs to happen. There is sadly a lot of parochialism in the decisions we make. Look at what is occurring now with the Murray-Darling and the fact that Victoria is holding out from the Federal Government's attempts to find solutions to the crisis.
This legislation is one example of attempts to bring New South Wales into line with other States so that transactions can occur seamlessly. I understand that some people will be disadvantaged by this and think that the city is perhaps not listening to them. I have consulted my electorate and the view I am getting is mixed but the majority of people are supportive of, benefit from and enjoy daylight saving. It is for that reason that I am supporting the amendment to the Act. My electorate is basically an urban electorate with two major centres: Wagga Wagga, the largest inland city in New South Wales, and Tumut, which is a large, growing and prosperous town. Regional communities, in particular farming communities, who need to work during daylight hours may feel they have been disadvantaged.
When we look at the overall picture of interaction between this State and other States—Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland—it is important that the time problems are realigned to overcome confusion and have seamless transactions in business. This fair and reasonable measure will create continuity across the eastern States. It has been expressed to me that some schoolchildren will be disadvantaged by having to catch buses in the early dark hours and parents will have difficulties putting children to bed with the sun still shining. We all have to deal with difficulties. As members of Parliament we are elected to make decisions for the benefit of everyone. That is why I have taken the position to support this bill.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.50 p.m.]: It is with pleasure I support the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill 2007. On behalf of the people I represent in Monaro I have been a strong supporter of the extension of daylight saving for a long time. The people of Monaro, like the people in the Wagga Wagga electorate, have expressed their support for extended daylight saving. They believe and feel strongly that more weeks of daylight saving at the beginning and end of the existing period will enable them to enjoy longer daylight hours, rather than sleep through them in the early morning. They will be able to continue to enjoy evening recreation, such as sporting competitions and after-school activities. Children will be able to play outside later in the evening after they get home from school.
Extended daylight saving is a great lifestyle initiative for people in our region. As the member for Wagga Wagga said, it has the practical benefit of aligning the eastern States, except for Queensland, which determinedly resists daylight saving. I know that decision is much to the dismay of many people who live in south-east Queensland who strongly support daylight saving and would like to see it put in place. I have been made well aware by relatives who live in that area of the very early hour of sunrise. Daylight saving is strongly supported by the people in the Monaro electorate. A few people do not like it, but they are very few—perhaps those who have to get up very early to feed horses and so on. Overwhelmingly, the families I speak to and represent think that daylight saving is terrific. They want it extended and strongly support this bill. I have been a supporter of the extension of daylight saving for a significant time, right back to well before I was elected.
Ten or twelve years ago I wrote a letter to the paper in support of retaining and extending daylight saving. At the time The Nationals had a policy to abolish daylight saving. I will be very interested in The Nationals' contribution to this debate. The member for Wagga Wagga supports the extension of daylight saving, and I presume the Liberal Party is supporting it overall. I will be interested to hear The Nationals' position, which I assume their leader will announce later in the debate. They have a strange history in relation to daylight saving. On 5 December 2004 the Leader of The Nationals put out a press release in which he called for a review of daylight saving because it was having a negative impact on people. The Leader of The Nationals said:
In areas where the temperature regularly reached 40 degrees plus, daylight saving meant that people had to put up with more sunlight at the hotter end of the day, robbing them of the early morning cool. 2362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
His statement represented a fundamental misunderstanding of daylight saving. At one stage The Nationals seemed to think that daylight saving changed the weather rather than the clock. I fully expected to hear discussion about fading curtains and other complaints that we used to hear many years ago.
[Interruption]
The Leader of The Nationals says I am a grub for quoting from his press release. I think he does not want to be reminded of what he said in the past, which summarises him as a politician. I will be fascinated to hear The Nationals version of what should happen with daylight saving. As I mentioned earlier, one of my first letters to the paper many years ago was in defence of daylight saving. I wrote it because the then Nationals member for Monaro had called for it to be abolished. In my letter to the paper I suggested that the people in Monaro did not want to go back to the dark ages of The Nationals, which they consistently promote. It will be fascinating to see the position The Nationals take in this debate. I wonder whether it will be different from the position of the Liberals, who support this very popular measure. I know the people in the Monaro electorate welcome this measure.
I am worried that The Nationals listen to only a few constituents. They do not worry about the people who live in the large towns in rural New South Wales who strongly support daylight saving. They do not worry about the people who want daylight saving extended. Like residents in the Monaro electorate, those people work nine-to-five jobs and they are keen to undertake leisure activities in the daylight hours that will be available to them after getting home from work. That applies equally to rural towns and city people. One of my great pleasures is going home and doing a bit of gardening in the evening. This bill will allow me to do that. The people who live on farms around the Monaro region and have off-farm income from jobs in town will be able to go home and do some of their chores in daylight. City and rural communities will welcome this measure.
I am sure when The Nationals contribute to this debate we will find out that they still live in a bygone era. They say that nothing should change. They make silly statements about daylight saving, such as the one I referred to earlier. I will never forget the statement by the Leader of The Nationals that daylight saving meant more hot hours at the end of the day. It is such a classic I pinned the press release on my wall. That shows a critical difference between The Nationals and Country Labor in representing rural New South Wales. Country Labor represents rural New South Wales in 2007, not 1907. We know that rural communities have changed over the years. We have rural towns where people enjoy their leisure hours and the benefits of daylight saving. That is why Country Labor is going so well in rural New South Wales. It may be one of the reasons why The Nationals were rejected so comprehensively in the Monaro electorate at the last election.
Mr John Williams: You just snuck in.
Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Murray-Darling interjects that I only just snuck in.
Mr John Williams: Kay Hull got you in.
Mr STEVE WHAN: I do not think I have ever met her.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order.
Mr STEVE WHAN: In response to the interjection about my just sneaking in, The Nationals held the seat for 15 years before I defeated them with the help of Country Labor and the intelligence of the Monaro community in the 2003 election. At that stage I had a margin of 3.3 per cent. I worked as hard as I could to repay the trust that those people put in me. I thank the people of Monaro for giving me a margin of 6.3 per cent at the last election, which represents a turnaround in The Nationals vote in just three elections of 22 per cent. That represents the fact that The Nationals are out of touch with rural New South Wales. They do not represent the people of country New South Wales because they continue to live in the past and only speak for the few members of The Nationals who still turn up at the odd meeting.
The funny thing was The Nationals could not even find a candidate who lived in Monaro to stand in the last election. That is how weak their branch structure is now: they have had to revert to good old Peter Cochran to be the president of The Nationals because there was no one else around to do the job. For the information of members, the rest of the branch in Monaro is made up of staffers of National Party Ministers who have come to work in Canberra and happen to have an address in Queanbeyan or who live in Queanbeyan. That is why I am 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2363
sure that the debate on this bill will show, as have so many other debates, that The Nationals are living in a bygone era, and that the people of rural communities enjoy and support daylight saving and will welcome this bill. That is why I support it so strongly.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
[Assistant-Speaker (Mr Grant McBride) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE GRAND FINAL
The SPEAKER: In accordance with the suggestion of the member for Manly, the charity to receive donations because of tomorrow's relaxation of the dress code rules will be the Layne Beachley Aim for the Stars Foundation. Layne is, of course, a Manly girl, and the charity is aimed at providing grants to young women to achieve their dreams. I look forward to members participating as widely as possible and thank them for their participation.
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL PATIENT CARE
Ministerial Statement
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [2.20 p.m.]: I offer my condolences for the tragic loss suffered by Jana Horska and Mark Dreyer last night at Royal North Shore Hospital. This is an extremely distressing case. I am advised Jana Horska was 14 weeks pregnant and had been to her doctor for an ultrasound yesterday, which showed no abnormalities. I am advised that Ms Horska presented to Royal North Shore Hospital's emergency department at 7.10 p.m. with mild abdominal pain and bleeding. She was immediately seen by the triage nurse and triaged as category four. This was a clinical decision taken by triage nursing staff.
I am advised that at 9.15 p.m. she went to the toilet in the waiting room where she miscarried. I have been personally touched by the horrific tale told on radio this morning by Mr Dreyer outlining his cries for help. The tragic loss of an unborn child has a devastating impact on everyone involved, including the emergency staff of the hospital. But no distress can compare with that being felt by Mr Dreyer and Ms Horska. I spoke at length with Mr Dreyer this morning and offered my condolences and apologies. There is no dispute with the assertion that the care provided to this family at Royal North Shore Hospital on this occasion was not acceptable. I am advised that the hospital's general manager has also apologised to the family for the shortcomings in the care provided.
This morning I commissioned an independent, external review of this case. Professor William Walters, the Executive Clinical Director at the Royal Hospital for Women, and Professor Cliff Hughes of the Clinical Excellence Commission will undertake the review. Professor Hughes has indicated that he is prepared to come back from leave to participate in this review in light of the seriousness of the case and the public interest in it. He will be available to offer his expertise on clinical governance to this review at the beginning of the week. The review will commence with Professor Walters examining the detail of the operations of the emergency department of Royal North Shore Hospital with reference to the treatment of pregnant women in general and this case in particular. The independence of both of these highly esteemed professors of medicine is beyond question. By leave I table the terms of reference for the inquiry under section 122 of the Health Services Act into the administration and services of Royal North Shore Hospital.
Document tabled.
The review will examine all the circumstances of this case. The findings will be made available to the family and, if they desire, publicly released. I look forward to the outcome of the review and the recommendations to guide improvements to the system.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.25 p.m.]: I also extend my condolences on behalf of all members on this side of the Chamber to Mark and Jana. The Leader of the Opposition and I spoke to Mark at length this morning. This is a tragic case. Mark acknowledged today that the staff of the hospital have apologised, but too late. Why did Jana have to wait two hours in the emergency department without being seen by a clinician? Yes, he and Jana were happy once they finally saw clinicians, but 2364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
they waited far too long. Why did this woman have to miscarry in the toilet? I will not go into the details now, but it is the most distressing and appalling story I have heard. Mark Dreyer is not happy that the Minister has said that his wife was happy with the treatment. According to him, she is far from happy.
Ms Reba Meagher: I didn't say that.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: Perhaps a member of the Minister's staff said that on the radio. I have the quotes here and if the Minister wants to see them I will provide them. That is the report. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is typical Labor spin. Mark Dreyer said at a press conference that he had heard a report on the ABC today about his wife being happy with the care she received. What a joke! She is not in the least bit happy about the care she received. Who would be when they attended an emergency department believing that first-world care would be provided only to be left in a waiting room, crouching on the floor doubled in pain having contractions and eventually going to the toilet to have a miscarriage? That is not expected in this day and age in this country. This is about resources. This is not an isolated incident; there have been many similar episodes. As the Minister knows, this inquiry will not go anywhere near fixing the problem, which is why Mark Dreyer has spoken out.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice), to be the subject of a motion to reorder, given.
QUESTION TIME
______
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL INQUIRY
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the unacceptable trauma and distress experienced by Mark and Jana Dreyer at Royal North Shore Hospital, why will the Premier not establish a genuinely open and independent inquiry into the ongoing problems at the hospital that will guarantee protection to staff who come forward with information instead of the so-called external inquiry that will be conducted by people on the Government's payroll?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will deal with the first part of the question in a moment. I have spoken to Mark, and on behalf of the Government extended our personal sympathies to him and Jana for what occurred and offered him any assistance that is not already being provided. I also gave him a personal assurance that if there is any matter that is not in the terms of reference that he wishes to have investigated, it will be investigated. I can well understand Mark and Jana's distress about what happened. This is an occasion in which the only consideration is the sadness and the distress of the family and ensuring that the process continues unhindered and that there is a thorough investigation that gets to the bottom of what happened. That is the one and only consideration: their sadness, their tragedy and the distress they are facing. We have to support them through that and find out why it happened.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: No, they want a guarantee that no-one else will face this.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, I will come to that. That is not in any way not to accept what Mark and Jana have said. It will be a transparent process—
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Open?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: An open process. I will come to that, because the immediate assumption on the part of the shadow Minister is that in some way the persons who have been named to undertake this investigation, people of the utmost clinical expertise and integrity, somehow do not have the competence to do it. In relation to the first part of the question, this is not a time for political grandstanding. The reality for the Leader of the Opposition is simple. The tribunal that exists in this State to undertake an investigation, the Health Care Complaints Commission, was substantially reformed as a result of the Campbelltown-Camden matters and has all the powers it needs. It has wide-ranging, independent, investigative powers to investigate and to hold 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2365
people accountable. That is why we brought the legislation into this Parliament to substantially reform that body and to give it extra powers. They included powers to protect staff who wish to come forward with any matter of complaint, as well as members of the public.
As part of that reform a second body, the Clinical Excellence Commission, was established. It also has wide-ranging powers to enter hospitals and undertake clinical investigations. I understand that the head of that commission, Professor Cliff Hughes, is one of the people who will undertake this independent, external review. If members have evidence of matters that they wish to be investigated I invite them to put that evidence before the Health Care Complaints Commission. I would be happy to facilitate that. If they have evidence or information of a clinical nature, I will be happy to facilitate that evidence being put before the Clinical Excellence Commission or to assist its facilitation to the people the Minister has appointed to undertake this external review.
That is the simple reality of the answer to the first part of the question. The Health Care Complaints Commission has been given substantially increased powers as a result of the reforms arising from the Campbelltown-Camden matters. It has all the necessary powers to undertake the independent investigation that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. That investigation may include clinical matters, but if there is a standalone clinical matter, the Clinical Excellence Commission has the power to enter hospitals and undertake clinical reviews. They are the two relevant bodies. The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly at liberty, if he decides to do so, to put any matters he is concerned about in relation to Royal North Shore Hospital or any other hospital to both those bodies. I would be happy to facilitate that for him.
SCHOOL ZONE FLASHING LIGHTS AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on the Government's efforts to improve safety for children around our schools?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the member for Maroubra for his interest in child safety. This morning, with the Minister for Roads, I announced that the Government will undertake a $46.5 million investment over the next four years to improve safety around schools for our schoolkids. Flashing lights in school zones will be implemented to protect our children going to and from school. These flashing lights have been trialled and I can report a very successful result in getting drivers to slow down in school zones. When they do that it means our children are safer.
The results of the trial show, for example, that the time difference when travelling at 50 kilometres an hour and 40 kilometres an hour in a 200-metre school zone is four seconds. How much is that worth when it comes to a child's life? Is that four-second saving worth a child's life? The answer is no, and that is why we are rolling out this program, which will be funded by the additional 50 speed cameras that we have started to install in and around school zones across New South Wales. Over the next four years we will install 400 sets of flashing school lights. That is in addition to pedestrian overbridges at schools, raised crossing thresholds, the supervised crossing safety program and security fences . The Government is taking these additional measures to provide greater safety and security for our children at schools during the 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. period and the 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. school zone operation.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order.
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order a second time.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The 400 sites will be selected on the basis of their location, the traffic accident history, traffic volumes, traffic speeds and student population. They are the five factors that will be taken into account.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Road transport safety professionals will undertake those assessments, and that will form the basis of the location of the 400 sets of flashing lights. The lights are part of a comprehensive package to provide for greater security and safety for our children going to and from school. The one and only priority is protecting our kids. 2366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL FUNDING
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: My question is to the Minister for Health. Given a document that reveals that funds to fix the buildings and equipment are being used for operational purposes at Royal North Shore Hospital, will the Minister finally admit the hospital's budgetary crisis is creating the conditions that lead to adverse incidents such as today's tragedy?
Ms REBA MEAGHER: It is just awful that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would somehow try to link last night's tragedy—
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease injecting.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The point here is that a review is being commissioned to establish exactly what went wrong with the system last night.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129 relating to relevance. The question was very specific about funding.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: There was not a single reference to anything in the question. The Minister cannot hide behind what happened yesterday.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. The Minister's answer is relevant to the question asked and complies with the standing orders. I ask the Minister to continue.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I have made the point, and I will make it again, that the standard of care that was received by Jana Horska and Mark Dreyer last night was unacceptable. We have an independent review so that we can assess the circumstances of this case and also, importantly, identify what went wrong and fix it so that it does not happen to another family.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order again relates to Standing Order 129. Mr Speaker, if you are suggesting that a specific question about health allows the Minister for Health to speak on any issue relating to health, then question time is irrelevant. I understand the previous rulings on relevance where a Minister can refer to other items in the gambit of the question, but ultimately Ministers have to answer at least some part of the question or at least make some reference to the question. This was a specific question about funding and the Minister is trying to hide behind what happened yesterday to cover up the Government's continual failings in health. That is what this question is about. This question is about stopping what happened yesterday from happening again. It is very important and cannot be swept under the carpet by the Minister for Health.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Murrumbidgee to resume his seat. Has the Minister concluded her answer?
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Yes.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT PROJECTS
Mr STEVE WHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Can the Minister provide the House with the latest information on major new infrastructure and investment projects in New South Wales?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the member for Monaro for his assistance and interest in the planning system of this State. As we move towards the next round of planning reforms the focus is on further streamlining the system to make it easier for mums and dads. But we must remember that we have come a long way and have cut a significant amount of red tape. This includes the assessment of major projects. Today I inform the House that since the election we have approved 138 major projects worth $5.74 billion to the State's economy and more than 25,800 jobs; 86 of those were in regional New South Wales worth $1.2 billion. That is since the election alone. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2367
In fact, since the major projects system was introduced just over two years ago we have approved projects worth nearly five times as much, with more than 670 given the green light, delivering $21 billion in investment to New South Wales. The planning system continues to underpin a State that is open for business while subjecting proposals to the most rigorous environmental assessment. Just today I approved a new water treatment plant at Coffs Harbour that will deliver 80 construction jobs and $32 million in capital investment to the North Coast. The council project will process up to 42 million litres of water per day treating all reticulated supplies flowing from Karangi Dam and helping to secure Coffs Harbour's drinking water supply.
This is just another example of the Iemma Government helping to deliver new infrastructure for New South Wales. Earlier this month I also gave concept plan approval for the new 13-kilometre south-west rail link and my department is assessing submissions on plans for the north-west rail link. The Minister for Transport is getting very excited because that process will soon come to an end, which means that the Government has delivered yet again another important project.
[Interruption]
Opposition members do not want to hear good news; they hate good news.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on the Opposition benches will remain silent.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: These will be major transport arteries connecting the 181,000 new homes planned for Sydney's growth centres, making it easier for workers to commute and quicker for them to return home to their families. The new south-west rail link will run between Glenfield and East Rossmore with two new train stations at Edmondson Park and Leppington. The north-west rail link will link Epping with established regional centres such as Castle Hill and new release areas such as Rouse Hill and the north-west growth centre. The Government is meeting its commitments to provide a supply of land and housing that meets demand but is matched with essential infrastructure. I also recently signed off on the next stage of the $338 million Hume Highway duplication.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Lane Cove to order.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: Detailed project approval has now been given to the entire 45-kilometre project, which delivers infrastructure to make our roads safer. We are also delivering new ports infrastructure: firstly, two new coal loaders in Newcastle worth a total of $1 billion in investment for the Hunter and 500 construction jobs, helping to ensure that New South Wales remains globally competitive and reducing shipping queues off the coast; and, secondly, the Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre, which I approved after extensive assessment and public consultation, and subject to more than 85 strict conditions.
Mr John Watkins: Another rail project.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: That is right. The intermodal will take up to 300 trucks off the road each day around Port Botany, helping to achieve the Government's target of doubling the volume of cargo moved by rail to 40 per cent.
Mr Thomas George: What about your commitment?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: Renewable energy projects are also moving forward. The member for Lismore is always behind the eight ball but if he listens I will tell him. For example, a $50 million wind farm approved near Yass will include up to 15 wind turbines, providing enough energy for up to 12,500 homes, equivalent to taking nearly 19,000 cars off the road for 30 years.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members of the Opposition will cease calling out or they will spend some time outside. The Minister has the call.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: Thank you for your assistance, Mr Speaker. All these projects strengthen the economy, support jobs and make life easier, safer or more convenient for hardworking families. That is why the Government is investing a record $10 billion in infrastructure each year through to the State Infrastructure Strategy. We have a plan to secure the State's future; the Opposition has no plan, nothing, zip, zilch, niente. The Coalition, in fact, was so stuck for an idea during the election that it resorted to using the Government's. In fact, 2368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
the shadow Minister for Infrastructure, when he was Leader of the Opposition, gave a ringing endorsement of the Government's State Infrastructure Strategy. He said at the time:
The Liberal and National Parties … if elected … are committed to delivering the projects outlined in the State Infrastructure Strategy.
They are trying to copy our plan because they have none. That was the former Leader of the Opposition but what does the new Leader of the Opposition say? He is hiding again. What ideas is he coming up with? What are his infrastructure ideas or plan for New South Wales? He cannot say what his plan is because he does not have one.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wakehurst to order.
MS DEBBIE ANNIS-BROWN DIALYSIS
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. As the Minister's media release of 5 June stated that Forbes dialysis patient Debbie Annis-Brown would be treated in Orange for a further six weeks after which she could be treated in her home town, can the Minister explain why 16 weeks later she is still being forced to travel to Orange three hours per day three times a week for treatment?
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I will seek information on that matter.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.
SYDNEY ORBITAL ROAD NETWORK
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Can the Premier update the House on new initiatives to provide more information to motorists about Sydney's orbital road network?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is no secret that the Government has put the development of an M-4 East project firmly on the agenda. While we spend billions on our public transport network, on improving bus services and on integrating new rail links to the north-west and south-west, we also must consider the best possible strategies to fight congestion on our roads and motorways and keep this city moving. As our city grows our road network must grow with it. Exploring the M-4 East is one of those priorities but it is much more than just a road project. Any development of such a road would not only complement the recently completed Sydney orbital network but also provide a comprehensive solution when it comes to trucks, freight, buses and local access.
That is why Professor David Richmond and his Coordinator General's office are working hard on that next logical addition to the Sydney road network. I expect his report into possible solutions later this year and I have made it clear we will have a dialogue with local communities when that work is complete. Making our existing motorways work, and work together, is one of the key targets in the plan to fight congestion. It is one of the most important priorities we can have and is part of the work that the Coordinator General's office is doing. It is all about making our road network work more efficiently to reduce congestion and to improve mobility.
The opening of the $1.1 billion Lane Cove Tunnel and expanded Gore Hill Freeway saw the completion of the orbital. This 110-kilometre ring around Sydney allows motorists faster travel around the city without having to pause at a single traffic light. While the completion of the orbital is a major achievement, it should not be seen as the end of the work on changing traffic behaviour on those routes. That is why the Roads budget is a record $3.6 billion. That is why we are investing $660 million in the Urban Transport Statement and a further $100 million to remove congestion hot spots from city roads. I note the latest research from the NRMA shows motorists who use motorways can get to work and return home around 70 per cent faster than those who use alternative routes. The NRMA's travel time survey also found motorists who use motorways use up to 40 per cent less fuel.
One of the immediate ways motorists can improve their journeys is to get an E-tag. An E-tag means no more queuing at a coin bucket at the toll booths, no more waiting as the driver in front searches for that last 10 cents under their seat or in the ashtray, and no more carrying around a tonne of shrapnel for every trip to and from work. Our next challenge, and one the Government wants addressed quickly, is to move to a fully cashless motorway network. The way forward for Sydney is to have a fully cashless motorway network. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2369
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have asked the Minister for Roads and the RTA to work hand in hand with the motorway companies to make cashless tollways a reality for Sydney. The M7, the Cross City Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel and the Harbour Tunnel are already fully cashless. I recognise that around the world it is always more difficult for motorways to move from cash to tags than it is to simply implement a cashless road from the start. But that is no reason to say it cannot be done here in Sydney. We recently had a major achievement in transforming the Sydney Harbour Tunnel into a cash-free roadway. That is a credit to the 80,000 motorists who use it every day and who virtually without a hiccup changed to cashless, improving traffic flows and congestion in the daily run to work as a result. The cashless Harbour Tunnel is working well. The change over saw an extra 68,000 motorists stick an E-tag to their windscreens.
The Government wants to harness that momentum, to pick the next road and target date, and get on with delivering those changes. I am asking the RTA and the private operators to work together. They have the expertise and the obvious motivation. It can be done but it will be done with conditions. We need the RTA and the motorways to deliver an inter-operable casual user pass to protect visitors to Sydney, pensioners, young people, or people who for one reason or another cannot immediately transfer over to an E-tag. We need detailed traffic plans to make the transition smoother, and we need the best possible tag technology to maximise the number of benefits for motorists and businesses. I await a timetable and implementation plan for our next step forward.
I can today announce the official launch of a new campaign and website to make using the 110 kilometre Sydney orbital even easier. It is being launched on YouTube and can be found by searching for "Sydney Motorways" on www.youtube.com. We are on YouTube for a number of obvious reasons but mainly so members of the public can access this information whenever they want. I can also announce the official launch of a new website www.sydneymotorways.com. This is an interactive website which allows motorists and visitors to Sydney to plan a trip and view common trip routes, calculate their tolls for using motorways, view traffic conditions via online traffic cameras, and find out about traffic incidents or road works and everything they need to know about tags and tolls.
MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier. He should be careful how he answers this. Given that he has never denied knowing about the allegations against Mr Orkopoulos prior to the Government being officially briefed by police, will he now admit he did have prior knowledge of these allegations? Who told him about them and what did he do with the information?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The matters that the member of the Opposition raises, and the timeline of events, were widely reported in the media last year. I refer him to the Premier's answer to a question in the Chamber on this matter on 14 November 2006. I stand by the facts contained in the Premier's statement, which makes it clear that I was first made aware of this matter via the police two days before Mr Orkopoulos was arrested. I remind the House that I was Minister for Police at the time. As I said in the House last year, and I repeat, I will not say or do anything that may impact on the hearing of this most serious matter currently before the court.
MENTAL HEALTH NURSING RECONNECT PROGRAM
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). Can the Minister inform the House about the Government's success in recruiting nurses back to the mental health system?
Mr PAUL LYNCH: I thank the honourable member for her longstanding interest in this field. Nurses are an essential part of the mental health workforce. They are critical for the delivery of quality mental health services. This Government is improving the capability of our workforce to deliver mental health services. One particularly successful program is the Nursing ReConnect initiative. This is designed to attract back nurses and midwives who have been out of the nursing workforce for a number of years.
Mental Health ReConnect is one component of this initiative. It was launched in April 2005 and was one of a range of strategies aimed at improving the recruitment and retention of mental health nurses. The initiative is open to enrolled or registered nurses with or without previous experience in mental health who are 2370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
currently not employed in a public mental health service. The program provides mental health services with four weeks salary replacement and $1,000 preceptor support for each nurse employed. This enables them to receive intensive orientation and support in their first weeks in the role. The Mental Health ReConnect program has far exceeded its original target of 40 nurses. In fact, the 100th nurse to be recruited through this program has now been employed at the Dubbo Mental Health Unit.
Cheryle Terry is a registered nurse who had been out of nursing for approximately 15 years. She had been running a small business with her husband prior to deciding to re-enter the nursing workforce. Although she had not previously worked in mental health, Cheryle had seen the effects of mental health problems in rural towns and decided she wanted to build her skills in meeting the mental health needs of her community. Cheryle has found the experience, in her words, "amazing" and "eye opening". Cheryle feels Mental Health ReConnect has given her a rare opportunity to learn the skills she needs to make a difference in her community. This is particularly good news for the Dubbo Mental Health Unit, which initially struggled to recruit nursing staff when it opened in 2005. I am advised that to date nine Mental Health ReConnect nurses have been employed at the Dubbo Mental Health Unit and a further two have been employed by the Dubbo Mental Health Team. This reflects the value of the initiative beyond the inpatient setting.
Justice Health has also been a beneficiary of the Mental Health ReConnect Strategy, with a total of six nurses commencing employment across its services. A significant number have also been employed with both South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Health Service and Sydney West Area Health Service. Cumberland Hospital is a large inpatient mental health facility where a total of 23 Mental Health ReConnect nurses have been employed. This has supported the ever-increasing demands of that acute service. By the beginning of September 2007 the Department of Health Nursing and Midwifery Office had received 487 expressions of interest from nurses inquiring about employment opportunities in mental health via the 1300 number. Calls continue to be received almost daily. Interest in Mental Health ReConnect is generated by a variety of sources that include newspapers, hospital inquiries, online sources, word of mouth, and the New South Wales Health website.
I am advised that this initiative is currently being evaluated. Nurses who have been reconnected and their managers will be asked for their ideas on how we can make the system even better. The employment of the 100th nurse through Mental Health ReConnect reflects the growing interest in mental health nursing as a career, and it matches the Government's record spending on mental health facilities. Obviously the program has been a commendable success, but it is only one part of our Mental Health Nursing Program. Under the Government's "A New Direction for Mental Health" enhancement package we have committed $11 million over five years to the Mental Health Work Force Program. Mental health nursing scholarships are one important component of the program. These scholarships are funded in three categories for nurses working in, or wishing to work in, the mental health field.
The Enrolled Nurse to Registered Nurse scholarships are valued at up to $5,000 each. In 2007 these scholarships will assist over 100 enrolled nurses to undertake studies in the Bachelor of Nursing degree. The postgraduate scholarships are also valued at up to $5,000 each. They will assist more than 200 registered nurses to develop skills and qualifications in a diverse range of mental health fields, including child and adolescent, older adults, forensics and perinatal. Our Mental Health Innovation scholarships, which are valued at up to $10,000 each, are awarded for projects that demonstrate innovative nurse-led models of practice leading to improvements in patient care. These projects reflect the commitment of mental health nurses to meeting the needs of patients wherever they may be located and across the spectrum of their lives and illness.
The success of mental health nursing scholarships has exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. The Government's original target in 2006 was to provide 40 mental health nurse scholarships. We ended up funding 119 scholarships. In 2007 the number of nurses seeking mental health nursing scholarships for study has again greatly exceeded the Government's targets. Due to this overwhelming response, the number of funded mental health nursing scholarships has been increased from 250 to more than 350. This means that this year alone the New South Wales Government will provide almost $1.9 million to enable more registered and enrolled nurses to upgrade their skills and qualifications in mental health.
Over the next five years New South Wales Health will enhance mental health service provision by providing 600 undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships for enrolled and registered nurses specialising in mental health. The Mental Health Work Force Program under "A New Direction for Mental Health" is also funding the expansion in the mental health workforce in areas of need and emerging priorities, such as older people's mental health and child and adolescent mental health. Mental health nursing scholarships are but one of a range of Government strategies to expand the State's mental health nursing workforce. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2371
Other programs include new graduate and transition training programs for nurses and allied health staff who choose to work in mental health, traineeships targeting careers in mental health, and the development of a post-enrolment qualification in mental health for enrolled nurses. In 2007 a significant number of mental health nurses will receive support to undertake nurse practitioner and advanced studies. This is in the context of record expenditure in the mental health field. In the 2007-08 budget the Government's commitment to the delivery of mental health services has been reconfirmed. We are investing $1.5 billion in mental health services this year. That is the first time in the history of the State that we have exceeded $1 billion. It is an 11 per cent increase on last year's budget and almost three times the allocation of $356 million that was provided in 1994-95.
Mrs Judy Hopwood: It's not working.
Mr PAUL LYNCH: I note the interjection. Instead of criticising, it would be nice if the Opposition gave us a plan, a strategy. That carping criticism of the Opposition happens consistently. The Government has a clear program and record expenditure in mental health. There is no alternative from the other side. We simply hear a constant whining and whingeing background noise. It does this place no good for them to take that approach.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.
Mr PAUL LYNCH: The Government has committed record amounts in mental health. We are committed to our State's nurses and we are committed to delivering best practice mental health care across the State.
CHAFFEY DAM UPGRADE
Mr PETER DRAPER: My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. Given that Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile recently announced a $6.5 million grant to upgrade Chaffey Dam, yet Malcolm Turnbull has since stated that funding is dependent on the New South Wales Government submitting a business plan consistent with the principles of the National Water Initiative, can the Minister advise the House what is now required from the State Government so that work can start on enlarging the dam?
Mr PHILIP KOPERBERG: I acknowledge the ongoing interest of the member for Tamworth in water, which is one of the most critical issues in all of the State's valleys, particularly the Murray-Darling at the moment. I am pleased to note that the Chaffey Dam water level has increased and is now at 44 per cent. Whilst on the one hand that is good news, with the prevailing weather patterns it may be that some time in the not too distant future the drought will further impact upon and severely test the capacity of that and other storage systems in the Tamworth area and around the State.
More than six months ago the New South Wales Government confirmed its commitment to two projects for Chaffey Dam—one, an upgrade to make the dam more efficient and, two, an expansion to increase its capacity from 60 gigalitres to 100 gigalitres. It is ironic that only a matter of weeks ago the Federal Government finally committed to funding its share of the enhancement of the dam. Even so, we get two different stories. The Prime Minister announces one thing and Malcolm Turnbull announces something else, and the devil is more likely than not in the detail. The proposal that sought the Government's commitment came from a community reference panel discussion paper. We reconfirmed our 100 per cent commitment to funding the dam safety upgrade component. The planning for that work is well in hand. As I said, the project to expand the dam will increase its capacity from 62 gigalitres to 100 gigalitres.
I note that finally on the eve of the election the Federal Government has agreed to fund its share of Chaffey Dam project. Even then its commitment is unclear. We are now left with more work to do to uncover the inevitable devil in the detail. We will keep pushing for clarification. A deal of clarification is required. Once we have received clarification from the Federal Government about its commitment we will be in a position to commence preliminary investigations into the project works.
The New South Wales Government has worked closely with the council to ensure secure town water supplies. This includes an investment of $400,000 early this year to assist the council to investigate a water reuse treatment plant for industry to offset potable water consumption. The council is also recommissioning drift wells, which were the former water source for Tamworth and for which the New South Wales Government has provided more than $1.5 million. Upgrading Chaffey Dam is about improving reliability and is not necessarily 2372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
in its own right designed to increase extractions. The Peel Valley is included in the cap arrangement for the Namoi Valley. While there is no specific water sharing plan for the Peel Valley and no current arrangements for environmental water, the Namoi Valley cap can be accommodated as a consequence of the more reliable workings of Chaffey Dam.
As I said, the Iemma Government has committed unequivocally to providing the funding for the upgrading of that dam. The enlargement and development of a water-sharing plan for the Peel Valley will result in improvements in environmental outcomes for the valley. But all of this is contingent upon the Federal Government guaranteeing funding for the project. I would encourage those opposite, including the member for Murrumbidgee and the Leader of The Nationals, to seek an undertaking from their Federal Coalition colleagues that the funding will be forthcoming and that there will be no strings attached. That is what the people of Tamworth deserve, and I am sure that is what the member for Tamworth will keep pursuing. He will have the Government's full support in securing the expansion and upgrading of that dam as soon as it can possibly be done.
SMALL BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 2007
Dr ANDREW McDONALD: My question is directed to the Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform. Will the Minister update the House on small business activity in New South Wales?
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will contain its excitement.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: It is good to see that there is enthusiasm about small business in this State. The small business community needs to be recognised for its hard work. From sole operators to businesses with more than 20 employees, to run a small business takes a lot of work, and involves taking substantial risks. The rewards for taking those risks are by no means guaranteed. The Iemma Government has been ambitious in creating the conditions for success—building up a strong economy, keeping taxes competitive and, as the Treasurer announced last week, maintaining our triple-A credit rating—because small business contributes so much to the State's economy. Small businesses employ more than one million people in our State—almost half the working population—and they make up 96 per cent of all businesses. Small business drives the economy, and we want to make sure owners of small businesses get the support they need to keep growing. That is why we devote an entire month to celebrating and supporting small business in New South Wales.
Small Business September 2007 has once again been a resounding success. Events have been held right across the State—from Broken Hill to Burwood, from Cooma to Coffs Harbour and beyond. I am pleased to announce that to date more than 25,000 people have attended over 280 events across New South Wales. The Iemma Government is hosting 90 of these events, and more than 100 supporting organisations are throwing their weight behind Small Business September 2007 by hosting their own events. The response has been phenomenal. Participants were asked to provide feedback on whether the events had been useful for their business. So far more than 94 per cent of respondents have given a positive rating. This result is evidence that Small Business September is delivering.
Highlights so far have included "Know first, be first, profit first", at which renowned futurist Craig Rispin presented an intriguing and entertaining forecast of what business should expect over the coming years. The audience was given a valuable insight into the next trends and how to take advantage of them. The event was booked out well before the day and Craig faced a packed house in the Parliament theatrette. We were also very pleased to secure Peter Thompson, presenter of ABC TV's Talking Heads, to host our panel discussion "Innovate or Perish: the business hypothetical". The panel included top business minds grappling with hypothetical situations facing a fictional company. No doubt those opposite were not part of the panel.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burrinjuck will remain silent.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: It was terrific to hear the creative solutions the panel came up with on the spot, and they were a great inspiration to the small business owners in the audience. There was also a strong focus on international business and trade with around 30 events throughout the month.
Several of these events were brought together by Austrade representatives who came direct from key target destinations such as Asia, the Pacific and Latin America to share their knowledge. Last week I had the opportunity to address a gathering of delegates from India, South East Asia and the Pacific. Terrific opportunities are opening up right across the region, and because of the work of the New South Wales Government local companies will be ahead of the pack in taking advantage of these markets. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2373
Tomorrow a trade event focuses on the exciting export opportunities in Chile, one of the countries pushing ahead of its region and growing rapidly. Last week I was privileged to meet some of the State's most promising young entrepreneurs at the Young Bizstar competition. Eight finalists pitched their business ideas to a panel of judges, who assessed how suitable the products were to attract investment. One of the winners, Michael Chan, has developed a product called bBand, which has the potential to revolutionise the market for baby monitors. Michael came to the competition with a very clear business case. He had done a lot of market research and he had a good pricing strategy and a really good product. By the end of his presentation the audience members were queuing up to invest in his product.
In the same spirit was New South Wales Pitchfest 07. Hosted by Peter Berner, this event was open to all budding entrepreneurs, and with $20,000 in prizes there was a huge response. Over two days contestants worked with industry experts to develop a winning pitch. As the competition progressed contestants were knocked out: only the best progressed to the finals, where they pitched to investors in front of a live audience at the Powerhouse Museum. I congratulate the winner, Ian McManus, who won over the judges with his innovative small business management software called "My Business Manager". Jimmy Seeravi was not only the runner-up in Pitchfest, with his unique functional food product, but was also winner of his category in the Young BizStar competition. There were quite a few investors in the audience of Pitchfest and they showed a great deal of interest in the projects.
The event brought together ideas and money, and gave local entrepreneurs rare access to investors. Turning ideas into businesses takes a lot of hard work, and we are keen to do whatever we can to help people make the connections, find investment and plan their business so it succeeds from the start. There are still around 50 events happening all over the State and I urge New South Wales business people to continue to be involved with Small Business September. It is all part of our plan to ensure New South Wales is open for business. The New South Wales Government is promoting small business, keeping the State competitive and helping our local small business people to expand their enterprises. We are focused and we are committed. We have a plan for small businesses in this State and we will continue to implement it.
MS DEBBIE ANNIS-BROWN DIALYSIS
Supplementary Answer
Ms REBA MEAGHER: In response to a question asked earlier I am advised that the clinical condition of Ms Annis-Brown requires her to be dialysed at Orange hospital. I am advised that the Forbes unit is for low-risk patients. I am further advised that in order to support this patient Greater Western Area Health Service is organising Ms Annis-Brown's transport one day per week and providing financial assistance through the New South Wales Government's Transport for Health initiative.
The New South Wales Government is committed to the provision of renal services in rural and regional New South Wales. The availability of renal dialysis services in New South Wales has been progressively increased since our initial allocation of $2.5 million per annum under the New South Wales Rural Health Plan in 2002. Renal services across New South Wales have also been further boosted following the Government's injection of an additional $14 million to expand dialysis services and provide 176 new places for patients needing treatment.
New South Wales Health is also developing two resource packages to support new staff working in renal dialysis services. The Rural Renal Nursing Resource Package identifies dialysis skills that may be needed by nurses and includes information that will assist staff in developing those skills. The Rural Renal General Orientation Package is a general resource providing information about renal function, renal disease and renal treatments. The package also includes specific information for a number of allied health professions, including Aboriginal health, social work, dietetics, pharmacy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. The New South Wales Government is committed to providing services closer to home.
Question time concluded.
PETITIONS
CountryLink Pensioner Booking Fee
Petitions requesting the removal of booking fees charged to pensioners on CountryLink services, received from Mr Richard Amery, Mr Greg Aplin and Mr Daryl Maguire. 2374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
CountryLink Rail Services
Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Hornsby and Berowra Train Station Parking Facilities
Petition requesting adequate commuter parking facilities at Hornsby and Berowra train stations, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Hawkesbury River Railway Station Access
Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Bus Service 501
Petition requesting that the Government improve and expand the 501 bus service, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Inner Sydney Light Rail
Petition requesting the development of an integrated light rail network through inner Sydney, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Daylight Saving
Petition asking that the present daylight saving period remain, received from Mr Greg Aplin.
Urban Areas Sex Shops
Petition requesting that the House prohibit the approval of sex shops in local urban areas, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.
Lismore Base Hospital
Petitions requesting funding for stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment and for rehabilitation beds to be maintained, received from Mr Thomas George and Mr Donald Page.
Tumut Renal Dialysis Service
Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Hornsby Palliative Care Beds
Petition requesting funding for Hornsby's palliative care beds, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Breast Screening Funding
Petition requesting funding for breast screening to allow access for women aged 40 to 79 years, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Batlow Policing
Petition requesting an increased number of police to address understaffing in the Tumut police patrol that has resulted in Batlow police being unable to adequately service the community, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Cronulla Electorate Policing
Petition requesting reinstatement of police numbers at Miranda police station and maintenance of a strong visible police presence in Cronulla, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2375
Kempsey Policing
Petition requesting increased police and Aboriginal community liaison officers to deal with youth crime in the Kempsey area, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Kangaroo Valley, Moss Vale Road, Tree Removal
Petition opposing the removal of mature trees along Moss Vale Road and requesting a strategy to improve road safety without endangering the heritage and scenic values of the road through Kangaroo Valley, received from Ms Pru Goward.
Forster-Tuncurry Cycleways
Petition requesting the building of cycleways in the Forster-Tuncurry area, received from Mr John Turner.
Roadside Grazing Charges
Petition opposing charges to farmers for roadside grazing of their stock, received from Mr Greg Aplin.
Kurnell Desalination Plant
Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell and requesting the promotion of wastewater recycling and stormwater harvesting to supplement Sydney's water supply, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.
Overhead Cables
Petition requesting that overhead cables be buried underground, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Hay Mobile Children's Service
Petition requesting increased funding for the Hay Mobile Children's Service to meet its commitment to isolated rural children, received from Mr John Williams.
Liquor Licensing Process
Petition asking that the liquor licensing process be amended to encourage and promote the development of small, local venues and a diversity of venues, received from Ms Clover Moore.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Reordering of General Business
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.21 p.m.]: I move:
That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) of which I gave notice today ["Breaking the Silence" Report] have precedence on Thursday 27 September 2007.
There are few more pressing issues in this State today than the fact that some of this State's citizens are suffering profound disadvantage and children are daily the victims of unspeakable evil right in our backyard. The Government's response to the issues highlighted in the "Breaking the Silence" report has been completely and utterly inadequate. In short, this State Government is failing Aboriginal families throughout New South Wales. In sharp contrast to the actions of the Federal Government, which has implemented strong and decisive measures in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, this Government continues to spout the rhetoric and tokenism that we have just heard from the member—Milton's friend. We get more rhetoric, more talk and more tokenism—anything but action.
The Federal Government's strong and decisive action has received widespread support, including from Aboriginal leaders such as Galarrwuy Yunupingu and Noel Pearson. Social dysfunction, including child sex abuse, is continuing in New South Wales Aboriginal communities despite the Government being aware of the 2376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
issues for well over 12 months courtesy of the "Breaking the Silence" report, which was handed to the then Aboriginal Affairs Minister and now disgraced former member Milton Orkopoulos in May 2006.
In following up the issue, Nationals members representing 6 of the 10 electorates with the largest Aboriginal populations in the State travelled to far western New South Wales in July to visit a number of communities, including Moree, Walgett, Brewarrina, Bourke, Wilcannia, Broken Hill and Dareton. What we found in some of those communities was both heartbreaking and a cause for indignation and outrage: for example, a 10-year-old boy with advanced venereal disease; 5 to 10-year-old children running the gauntlet of 12 to 18-year-olds who had themselves been sexually abused; three-year-olds acting out sexualised behaviour on their playmates; chronic drug and alcohol abuse fuelled by welfare payments and entrenched unemployment; and young children sneaking in and out of a variety of houses under the cover of darkness in an endless search for a safe place to sleep.
Unbelievably, all these issues and more were highlighted in the "Breaking the Silence" report, which was delivered to this Government 16 months ago, but the Iemma Government has done little other than trivialise allegations in the report as "kiddy fiddling". The former chief of staff to the disgraced Aboriginal affairs Minister, who is now none other than the Minister for Emergency Services, has admitted that. Meanwhile, on the ground we see a continuing paucity of resources, including police and Department of Community Service workers. The sole Department of Community Services worker at Brewarrina is trying to cover an area where children are at constant risk that is larger than the Sydney Basin. It is not good enough. When the rubber hits the road, this Government lacks the political will to deal with this most pressing of issues.
This is a pressing issue because the Aboriginal people who contributed to this report have been to see me and they are absolutely outraged that after their contribution—often at considerable risk to themselves—this Government has failed to act. A raft of scandalous statistics highlights the need for this motion to be debated immediately. Life expectancy for Aboriginal males in far western New South Wales is 33 years, incarceration rates are 12 times the State average, and the area has the second-lowest retention rate of Aboriginal students in public education. This issue needs to be debated urgently.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [3.25 p.m.]: The Government acknowledges that there are serious problems in the Aboriginal community. However, those issues will not be resolved by political point-scoring of the kind that we have witnessed here this afternoon, with totally fictitious claims being made by the Leader of The Nationals.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will remain silent.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: His claims about the Government's response to the "Breaking the Silence" report are totally incorrect and fictitious. I remind the Leader of The Nationals that an interagency plan was released in January involving not only the Government but also the peak bodies dealing with the issue. As a result of that plan $30 million has been set aside by this Government to deal with the situation over the next four years, and that involves 88 separate actions. The implementation of that plan has become part of the State Plan. That is action and it demonstrates what the Government is doing to address the serious issues raised here today. It is not political point-scoring or trying to make politics out of a serious issue. The Government opposes the motion.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
[In division]
Mr Chris Hartcher: Mr Speaker, I ask a question of you about the process in division. On which side are the members on the second row of the crossbench?
The SPEAKER: Order! That has been negotiated by the Whips, and we have a good understanding of the outcome.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Is it within the standing orders that they be allowed to sit there? If it is not, they should be counted with the ayes.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am happy to look into it. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2377
Ayes, 38
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Ms Goward Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Piper Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Provest Mr Maguire
Noes, 46
Mr Amery Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Beamer Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Ms Burton Mr Khoshaba Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Mr Stewart Mr Collier Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr West Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr Whan Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Daley Mr McLeay Tellers, Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Firth Ms Meagher Mr Martin
Pairs
Mrs Hancock Ms Judge Mr Stokes Mr Terenzini
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing Orders: Bill
Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to permit the introduction and passage through all remaining stages at this sitting of the Christian Israelite Church Property Trust Bill 2007.
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY
Disability and Housing Services
Mr DAVID BORGER (Granville) [3.37 p.m.]: I urge that priority be accorded to the following motion, of which I gave notice earlier:
That this House:
(1) notes the progress made by the New South Wales Government in delivering real improvements to our community's most vulnerable;
2378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
(2) condemns the Commonwealth Government's continued withdrawal of services and support from both the disability services and housing sectors; and
(3) calls on the Leader of the Opposition to support the New South Wales Government's call for increased Federal funding to these vital services.
This is a matter of urgency for the hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities and their families who are missing out on services while the Commonwealth plays games. It is important to the people of Granville, Western Sydney and New South Wales who are waiting for the next Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement to be resolved and which the Federal Minister has been holding up for six months.
Royal North Shore Hospital Inquiry
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.38 p.m.]: I seek the House's support in giving priority to the motion of which I gave notice earlier today:
That this House calls on the New South Wales Government to hold a full, open and independent inquiry by non New South Wales Health employees into systemic problems at Royal North Shore Hospital.
I say at the outset that I cast no aspersions about the professionalism of the two gentlemen who have been named by the Minister to look into a specific incident, one from the Royal Hospital for Women—where, indeed, I had my youngest child some years ago, exactly tomorrow—and the chairman of the Clinical Excellence Commission, who is a very fine man. The terms of reference are wrong. An in-depth inquiry into the hospital is required, not simply an inquiry into one incident at the hospital, and only into miscarriages. My motion calls for a broader and open inquiry that would not be conducted by an employee of the New South Wales Government.
A retired legal practitioner or a person from another State could conduct the inquiry and subpoena witnesses to appear before the inquiry. They would give evidence on oath and they would be given the same protection as witnesses in a court. They would be given the right to come forward and have a say, instead of some doctors, nurses and patients from Royal North Shore Hospital leaking some documents to me complaining about one problem after another. An open inquiry should be held into the systemic problems at this hospital not just about this tragic incident involving the miscarriage that was so badly mishandled. I shall outline a few of the problems that I would refer to an open inquiry. In September 2005 Dr Lali Sekhon, who was a senior spinal neurosurgeon at Royal North Shore Hospital, resigned and said in his letter:
Patients with life-threatening neurosurgical conditions are left at peripheral hospitals, often in their emergency rooms because of a lack of beds at Royal North Shore … the refocussing of hospital and Northern Sydney Area health priorities on administrative benchmarks and saving money and away from patient care is one of the main reasons I tendered my resignation from the hospital and why I will leave the Australian medical sphere.
We lost one of the world's best specialists in that incident. Sadly, two months later, November 2005, Vanessa Anderson died at Royal North Shore Hospital after being hit in the head with a golf ball. Vanessa's father described her treatment as a comedy of errors in a dysfunctional hospital system. The Coroner has been investigating that matter and the inquiry will resume on 2 October and 3 October. I will attend both those days because I believe extraordinary evidence will be given to this inquiry that will lead to further matters being investigated.
On 14 February 2006 nurses rallied at Royal North Shore and Ryde hospitals to express their concern that underfunding is compromising patient care. On 16 February 2006 a patient with a neurological problem that prevents her feeding herself was admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital yet a shortage of nurses resulted in her being fed only one banana during an entire week. Her specialist visited her on one occasion and found that she had not eaten her breakfast so he fed her himself. A lack of staff to help patients feed themselves is a common complaint. In March 2006 doctors at Royal North Shore Hospital had to cancel head surgery because there was no money to fix vital equipment, according to emails leaked to me. On 28 July 2006 Per-Olav Peltonen had been waiting nine months for treatment for a nine-centimetre aneurysm, which at any moment could have erupted and killed him. He was only given the surgery after we raised the matter in the media.
In August 2006 busloads of nurses throughout the region planned to storm the chief executive officer to protest loss of jobs and in November 2006 a paralysed grandmother was refused access to a life-saving breathing machine because there was not any money. Recently ambulances banked up. There are 100 vacant positions. Patients in the emergency department are treated in treatment rooms that are the size of a storage room. Today members have heard about capital funds being used to prop up recurrent operational expenses and 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2379
last night a patient went through the horror of having a miscarriage in the toilet. It is time we had a full, open inquiry into systemic problems at Royal North Shore Hospital. The Government should support the motion.
Question—That the motion of the member for Granville be accorded priority—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 47
Mr Amery Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Beamer Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Ms Burton Mr Khoshaba Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr McLeay Tellers, Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Firth Ms Meagher Mr Martin
Noes, 38
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Ms Goward Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Piper Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Provest Mr Maguire
Pairs
Ms Judge Mrs Hancock Mr Terenzini Mr Stokes
Question resolved in the affirmative.
DISABILITY AND HOUSING SERVICES
Motion Accorded Priority
Mr DAVID BORGER (Granville) [3.53 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the progress made by the New South Wales Government in delivering real improvements for our community's most vulnerable;
(2) condemns the Commonwealth Government's continued withdrawal of services and support from both the disability services and housing sectors; and
2380 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
(3) calls on the Leader of the Opposition to support the New South Wales Government's call for increased Federal funding to these vital services.
The Iemma Government is committed to improving services that hardworking families rely on. In fact, the Premier has made providing better services for these families a personal priority and this Government is making real progress. This Government has taken a new direction in the delivery of social housing, focussing on those most in need. We manage over 146,000 social housing properties, with an asset portfolio worth more than $27 billion, and will this year invest $295 million to build 1,357 new homes. We announced our 10-year Stronger Together disability services plan last year. We have listened to people with a disability, their families, carers and the service providers that support these people. The Stronger Together program details how we will provide greater assistance and long-term practical solutions backed with $1.3 billion in new funding.
While the Iemma Government is providing increased funding, more support and better services the Commonwealth Government is walking away from those most in need. As members of this House would be aware, the New South Wales Government is currently in negotiations with the Commonwealth Government for both the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement and the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Both of these funding agreements should ensure that the delivery of disability services and social housing are cooperative ventures between the Federal and State governments, but unfortunately that is no longer the case.
The Commonwealth Government has taken a path of continued withdrawal of funding, services and support from both the disability services and housing sectors. The current Commonwealth-State Territory Disability Agreement was due to expire on 30 June 2007. Negotiations began in April this year and unfortunately no agreement has yet been reached. The Iemma Government's plan goes a long way to addressing the needs of people with a disability and their families. However, we know that proper investment from the Commonwealth Government is essential if we are to address critical areas of need. That is why we need a fairer Commonwealth-State Territory Disability Agreement.
This agreement underpins the disability system in New South Wales. It identifies national policy priority areas, commits both the New South Wales and the Australian governments to specified levels of funding, and describes a performance framework for disability services. The range of services provided under the agreement includes supported accommodation, respite services, community support services, community access services, advocacy and information services, and employment services. I know how important these services are. Many years ago in another life I worked for the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability as a policy adviser.
In the lead-up to the 1995 election our association was aware of many families and parents across the State who lacked accommodation options, in particular ageing parents of people with disabilities who had devoted their entire lives to helping their children but knew that soon they would not be able to provide those levels of care. We organised a serious of campaigns and public meetings in RSL clubs and town halls across the State and we heard those stories of need. I remember the shadow Minister of the day, the Hon. Ron Dyer, in the lead-up to the election, committing to a $50 million package to help those people. There was no such package forthcoming from the Hon. Jim Longley, the Minister of the day.
The Commonwealth does not have a good track record when it comes to negotiating these agreements. As members of this House may recall, the last agreement was signed over a year late and the Commonwealth is not performing much better this time. Negotiating the new agreement with Minister Mal Brough has descended into farce, or more like a tragedy considering the families involved. Despite the huge Commonwealth Government surplus, the Minister will not commit to providing any increase in funding for disability services in the Commonwealth-State Territory Disability Agreement. The Iemma Government has committed $1.3 billion to improve disability services in New South Wales and the Commonwealth Government has offered $400 million for the entire country. This is not growth money. This offers merely indexation at the unacceptable rate of 1.8 per cent and the continuation of the small ageing Carers Respite program. At most, New South Wales will receive $135 million over four years. That is a mere 10 per cent of the Iemma Government's investment.
The Commonwealth Government has announced a $1.8 billion disability assistance package. While we welcome the announcement, it does not make up for years of inaction. The package, which includes 800 new respite places and 1,750 new accommodation places, does not come close to matching the Iemma Government's commitment. Under the Stronger Together program the Iemma Government is committing to families in New South Wales over five years 1,400 new supported accommodation places and intensive in-home support places, 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2381
and 1,260 new respite places on top of the 791 respite places we provided as part of the Older Parent Carer Program in the 2006-07 financial year.
Further, it seems that of the $1.8 billion announced by the Commonwealth $800 million goes to carers' payments and business services, which are already direct responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government. This leaves approximately $1 billion for specialist disability services across the entire country, compared to our $1.3 billion commitment for New South Wales alone. The Commonwealth Government's investment into disability services has been declining for years. Five years ago the Commonwealth contributed 20 per cent of disability funding and New South Wales provided 80 per cent—20 versus 80. Today the Commonwealth's share has reduced to just 16 per cent of funding. Unless the Commonwealth recognises and matches our effort under Stronger Together there will be a further major drop in its share of support for people with a disability in New South Wales. In Sydney last July the New South Wales Minister for Disability Services chaired a meeting of all disability services Ministers . At this meeting the Federal Minister stated that the Commonwealth would take "jurisdictional responsibility" for all people with a disability over 40 years old with parents over 65.
Minister Brough claimed this step would "free up" funding for the States and Territories. It was his excuse for rejecting the proposal by the States and Territories of $3.4 billion in new money in the next round of the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. However, when the States pressed Minister Brough about the details of this "jurisdictional takeover", he was unable to answer basic questions. Instead, he agreed to provide written information to all States and Territories by the end of July. I am sure members of this House would be surprised to hear that, to date, the Minister has failed to provide this information. Instead, the Minister provided us with another copy of his media release. Questions about implementation, equity, coordination and duplication have been ignored. We are becoming more and more concerned that this is just a stunt in an election year. Meanwhile, people with a disability miss out. The lack of detail about how the package will work is causing confusion and unnecessary anxiety for people with a disability and their families, carers and service providers.
The New South Wales Minister has written to Minister Brough again, this time with a list of 46 questions and a number of case studies that need to be addressed urgently. We call on the Commonwealth to stop playing political games with some of our community's most vulnerable people and answer the questions posed. People with a disability, their families and carers deserve answers. Minister Brough is still holding up the finalisation of the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement, which is already way overdue. The Commonwealth Government has not even bothered to respond to the States and Territories proposal, which would inject significant new growth into disability services—5.5per cent, or $3.4 billion of new money—across Australia. The Iemma Government's $1.3 billion Stronger Together plan will see more money put into disability services in New South Wales than the Commonwealth is promising for the entire country.
Mr David Campbell: That is a disgrace.
Mr DAVID BORGER: It is a disgrace. Our commitment in New South Wales through the Stronger Together plan will improve the lives of people with a disability, their families and carers through increased services that strengthen families and support community participation. Our commitment will not waiver, no matter how many political games Minister Brough wants to play in relation to services to some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [4.03 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:
this House notes the lack of progress made by the New South Wales Government in the delivery of disability services and housing.
The new Left from the west has come here this afternoon and shot the Government in the foot. The new Minister for Disability Services has failed to look at the initial correspondence that her predecessor wrote to the Commonwealth Government about funding for disability services—particularly for respite and supported accommodation, which is facing the greatest crisis in disability services in New South Wales. The former Minister for Disability Services, the Hon. John Della Bosca, in a letter back in January, sought further investment from the Commonwealth in disability services. Minister Della Bosca wrote:
We are of the view that a multilateral matched funding strategy similar to that of young people in residential aged care and older carers respite initiatives will make a real difference. 2382 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
The member for Granville failed to mention a 50:50 funding offer that was put up by Mal Brough to Minister Keneally. Federal Minister Mal Brough delivered upon the letter from Minister Della Bosca seeking a matched funding strategy—similar to young people in residential aged care and older carers respite initiatives—by offering a 50:50 funding agreement as part of a bilateral agreement, together with a multilateral agreement that was being discussed at the time. At no point in the State's history have we had an opportunity for a 50:50 funding agreement to be reached with the Commonwealth on respite and supported accommodation. The question that needs to be answered by the Government is: Why did it reject this enormously generous offer, which was designed to meet the crisis that is affecting families of loved ones with disability throughout this State? The 50:50 funding agreement would lock in both sides of politics forever, because it would be near impossible for any government at any level to back out of such an agreement. What did the inexperienced Minister do? She rejected it out of hand.
The Minister could have signed up to the agreement and started to address the crisis in respite and supported accommodation. In this State 40 per cent of respite beds are blocked with full-time people needing supported accommodation. In the past 12 months 1,200 people have applied to the Government for supported accommodation, yet only 150 have received such support. That is the situation we are dealing with. For the Government to have a 50-50 funding opportunity put on the table by the Commonwealth and reject it out of hand without any reason is inexplicable. The only reason I can come up with is that some time between now and the next election Kevin Rudd will ride up on his white horse and make a lot of promises. So it is designed to help Kevin Rudd. Try telling that to the people of New South Wales and to the thousands of people who need respite care and supported accommodation. The Minister for Disability Services has been flying around the globe more worried about her image than dealing with respite and supported accommodation.
Mr Gerard Martin: What is your plan?
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I would have signed up to the 50:50 funding offer from the Commonwealth. I would have happily enjoyed an increase in money from the Commonwealth for respite and supported accommodation. It gets worse, because other States and Territories have taken up the offer. Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory took it up. This Government walks away without any words, and the first week back from three months recess it puts this motion on the table. That is incredibly wrong. People with a disability in this State, their families and their carers will take note of the letter from Minister Della Bosca in January seeking such an arrangement. For Minister Keneally to knock back the offer is cruel and inhumane.
Every single member of this House deals time and again with families who are reaching crisis point and struggling to gain the respite and supported accommodation they need. We have heard more gumph from the member for Granville about the Commonwealth's contribution. At the moment the $3.275 billion multilateral agreement from the Commonwealth is still being negotiated on the basis that the States be more accountable in the way they expend the dollars on disability services. This is from a Government that cannot produce a waiting list. The Government has no centralised waiting list showing how many people require respite care and how many people require supported accommodation.
I do not know how the Minister for Disability Services can go to Cabinet and argue with the Treasurer and the Premier about what is required to address the unmet need in this State. But without a waiting list and without any accountability for the unmet demand, in no way can the Minister debate what is required for her portfolio and, ultimately, what is required for the disability sector in New South Wales. For the benefit of the member for Granville I point out that the Commonwealth also made an additional offer of $1.8 billion over and above the multilateral agreement of $3.275 billion. This package will directly assist older carers, about whom the member for Granville spoke about in his address, by providing additional accommodation and respite services as well as an annual payment of $1,000 to carers of children under the age of 16.
It seems that it is fine to play politics and fiddle with the figures, but to fail to make any reference to a 50:50 funding offer or to the additional offer of $1.8 billion on top of the $3.275 billion shows what sort of games are being played. During debates in this House on motions accorded priority, attacks on the Commonwealth are used to deflect attention from what is happening in this State. To kick an own goal like that is amazing. I will show this letter from John Della Bosca to every disability advocacy group in this State so they understand what the Government is doing to them.
For example, a supported accommodation action group in the Sutherland shire has presented to the Government a register of about 150 people requiring supported accommodation in the Sutherland area. Where is 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2383
the member for Miranda? Where is the member for Menai? They have not been fighting for this group. They have not been delivering speeches like the member for Cronulla on this crisis in the Sutherland shire. This information is being presented to the Government and no doubt meetings are being held with the Minister. The basic question has to be asked of the Minister: how many people in the Sutherland shire currently require supported accommodation and are not having their needs met? The Minister does not have an answer. Why? Because the Government does not keep waiting lists. It does not want to be accountable for the years of neglect and the lack of funding in disability services.
What happened 12 months out from a State election last year? Suddenly there was a $1.3 billion program. There are literally thousands of people who are no longer bothering with government services because they cannot access them. People no longer come forward because the Government cannot accurately keep information or waiting lists. At the same time we see stunts such as the rejection of a serious 50:50 funding offer from the Commonwealth in relation to respite and supported accommodation, which would go some way to addressing the crisis. Stronger Together, the $1.3 billion package over five years, will not solve the problem the Government has created.
Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [4.13 p.m.]: Disability services and social housing are two government services that cannot be neglected. They help and support some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement was first established in 1945 by a great Prime Minister who talked about the light on the hill, an idea that still resonates in Australian politics today. He was, of course, Ben Chifley. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has lived through many different leaders— Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating.
Mr David Campbell: But not Howard.
Mr DAVID HARRIS: No. It lived on until 2007 when bull-at-the-gate Mal Brough, without consulting any of the States or Territories, put out a press release signifying a change to social housing in this country forever. If the Howard Government is re-elected the States and Territories will be forced to compete with private companies, who only want to earn a buck, for funding to provide homes and services for those most in need. After draining $1 billion from three successive agreements the Howard Government now wants to rip up the entire agreement and yank around $300 million currently set aside for housing from each State. As it stands, John Howard's new policy to rip out about a third of the New South Wales budget means social housing providers across the country may be forced to sell around 39,000 homes to make up the financial shortfall. It is a disgrace.
In New South Wales that will potentially affect more than 20,000 people who have relied on us to help them improve their quality of life but whom we will no longer be able to help. This reckless policy will also add to the affordable housing crisis as working families struggle to find cheap rental accommodation in the private market. Add more than 20,000 people to the housing register, which we have worked so hard to keep low over the years, and all planned purchases and construction of new homes for working families and those in need will stop and all planned maintenance for the lucky ones who still happen to have a roof over their head will stop.
Mal Brough and John Howard have yet again made policy on the run. Between invading the Northern Territory and cutting back welfare payments to vulnerable people they are undermining this basic pillar of social policy, and for what reason? It is an attempt to score political points for a Government facing electoral annihilation. In my seat of Wyong there are currently plans for more than $9 million worth of housing. The total for the Central Coast is more than $24 million. That will all be put at risk. Until 1996 the provision of housing was a cooperative venture between the Federal and State governments. Yet, despite increased demand, when the Howard Government came to power it began to withdraw support.
The current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is due to end in June 2008. The Government has been actively working with the other States and Territories to engage with the Australian Government on future options. The way forward, as we see it, is the development of a comprehensive national housing agreement and for all levels of Government to address the issue and work together. State and Territory housing Ministers have provided Mal Brough with a six-point plan framework that covers all areas of government policy that impact on the housing system. It is a sensible, solution-based approach to housing affordability and a basis to begin negotiating for another Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, not what is currently on offer from the Federal Government. I again call on the Australian Government to work with the States and Territories to find solutions to housing affordability and make a genuine attempt to help those struggling families in our community. 2384 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [4.18 p.m.]: The seriousness of this issue should not be underrated. Everybody in this country has the right to share in its productivity. Part of our role in working with government decision makers and the community is to make sure we fulfil our duty to look after those who are most in need. Many in our communities rely on disability services and community-based housing. In my previous life I was an aged-care operator. We provided services for young people with disabilities as well as respite services to people in the community. My fellow aged-care operators would wake up every day and basically say, " Thank you, John Howard".
When working in aged care we depended on reliability and security. People in public housing, public health, and disability services were envious of the fact that we could deal with the Federal Government directly. It was important that those clear lines of communication were maintained. It was about supporting community groups on the ground in their endeavours to provide those services. The Minister's failure to agree to bilateral agreements and her politicisation of the issue is not good enough. That is the reason I support the member for Bega's amendment, which asks the House to note the lack of progress made by the Iemma Government in the delivery of disability services and housing.
I am an active member of the South Moree Housing Tenants Association and I meet regularly with members to discuss public housing and how it is managed. The Leader of The Nationals and I recently led six of our Nationals colleagues on a tour around western New South Wales looking at indigenous education. However, our discussions with the locals always came back to public housing; the two are inextricably linked. We came to the conclusion that the Department of Housing's management of Aboriginal housing needs examination. During a two-minute drive around my town last week with a local journalist we were able to identify 12 Aboriginal houses which have been vacant for some time and which have just been boarded up.
This morning at the Minister's seminar on ageing into the future I said that the dysfunctional relationship and fractured arrangements in public housing in this State call for a significant overhaul. We have houses available for Aboriginal families, but there is a blockage between the Department of Housing and the Aboriginal Housing Office. That is a real problem. Before we start bleating about extra funding to provide additional housing, let us look after what we have and get the system functional and back on track. Three years ago the Government promised the community of Walgett 14 new houses but only four were built. That is symptomatic of the delivery of services and infrastructure in towns like Moree, Walgett, Brewarrina, Bourke, Wilcannia and Dareton. They were the towns we visited and the message was the same in each place: new housing promised years ago has not been delivered and the system has been mismanaged and needs an overhaul.
The other issue raised was that rewards for good, long-term tenants in public housing have never been examined. Action groups have told me that tenants who pay their rent on time, are good neighbours and look after their property—many of whom have lived in public housing for between 30 and 40 years—should be rewarded. I know the Minister for Housing is aware of that suggestion because he acknowledged it in Tamworth. We need a system to reward good tenants and to put them on the front-end of service delivery. Much needs to be done and everyone can and must do better. I do not say that lightly and it is true of all governments. Let us get on with it and manage what we have better and sign off on this commonsense bilateral agreement. It is a good offer and the Minister needs to stump up.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [4.23 p.m.]: Since the Howard Government was first elected it has gradually withdrawn from its responsibilities in both the disability and housing sectors. There has been a pattern of delay and reduced commitment from Canberra as the Commonwealth Government refuses to match funding under the Commonwealth-State-Territory Disability Agreement and the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Rather than do the right thing and stand up to their mates in Canberra, members of the Opposition have today supported the demise of these vital services. After draining $1 billion from three successive housing agreements, the Howard Government now wants to rip up the entire agreement and remove about $300 million from each State that had been set aside for housing.
Negotiating the fourth Commonwealth-State-Territory Disability Agreement has forced the Howard Government to show its true colours. At first it offered a bilateral dollar-for-dollar funding agreement for supported accommodation and respite services for people with a disability, their families and carers. But that was not a genuine offer to the people of New South Wales because the Howard Government consistently and publicly ruled out our forward estimates. Members opposite do not seem to understand that.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bega will come to order. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2385
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: When the member for Bega said that other States accepted the agreement he did not say that the Commonwealth reached an agreement with the three States that required the least funding. New South Wales did not reject the offer; the Commonwealth Government refused to consider the forward estimates and then withdrew the offer. The member for Bega refuses to put that on the record because he does not want to acknowledge what the Howard Government is doing. The New South Wales Government has a responsibility to consider those forward estimates. This State has the largest population in Australia, but the member for Bega also refuses to acknowledge that. That means the Iemma Government's historic investment in disability services under the Stronger Together program is being ignored. That is, the people of New South Wales are being punished for having a Government that is committed to improving services for people with a disability, their families and carers. In another unbelievable move, the Commonwealth Government withdrew the offer completely. In a letter received by all States and Territories the Federal Minister stated:
I now advise that the offer of bilateral funding to address unmet need is no longer available.
What the Howard Government is currently offering States and Territories is a mere $400 million in new money for the whole country over the next five years. That is an indexation rate of 1.9 per cent. That would result in the Commonwealth's share of the disability agreement drop from 16 per cent to around 13 per cent of funding for specialist disability services in New South Wales by 2010-11. The member for Bega thinks that New South Wales should accept that offer. Obviously, if he were in government he would find that acceptable.
If the Howard Government were serious about improving services for people with a disability and vulnerable people in the housing market it would match the Government's massive funding increase, and do so quickly. The Government has taken a new direction in the delivery of social housing focusing on those most in need. It manages more than 146,000 social housing properties with an asset portfolio worth more than $27 billion and will this year invest $295 million to build 1,357 new homes. The Government is now focused on providing housing for those most in need, including the frail aged, people with a mental illness and people with a disability.
The Government has stepped up to the plate and committed more than $1 billion in additional funding for disability services. Yet the Commonwealth Government, despite its $15 billion surplus—much of which comes from New South Wales—will not meet the Government's record investment. People with a disability, their families and carers deserve a better deal from the Commonwealth Government. It is about time that members opposite stood up to the Commonwealth Government rather than behave as its lackeys in this Chamber. People with a disability, their families and carers deserve an assurance from the Federal Minister that the Commonwealth Government will meet this Government's funding commitment and stop the delay in signing both agreements.
Today I met with members of Handital New South Wales Inc., which is a major provider and advocacy group servicing Italian families caring for their children. They are outraged about the Commonwealth Government's position. We need a real and long-term commitment from the Commonwealth to meet the needs of our communities. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to support the Iemma Government's call for increased Commonwealth funding for these vital services rather than the lip service we have seen from the Opposition today.
Mr DAVID BORGER (Granville) [4.28 p.m.], in reply: When Morris Iemma was first elected Premier of New South Wales he stated that one of his clear priorities was to look after people with disabilities and their families. With the introduction of the Stronger Together policy and its associated funding he has delivered on that promise. The member for Drummoyne is correct: The Commonwealth Government had a huge budget surplus this year of $15 billion. It is alright for the Prime Minister to traipse around the country throwing money at marginal electorates in his desperate bid to be re-elected, but why can Federal Minister not stump up and respond to this State's plan for extra money for disability services in this State? The Government has put $1.3 billion of additional money into the Stronger Together program, and it is funding a whole range of critical services in local communities. On Wednesday 9 May the shadow Minister, the member for Bega, said in this House:
It is time to consider whether the Government should opt out of the provision of accommodation services altogether.
What are people with disabilities around New South Wales to think of that statement? The shadow Minister should talk to those families and see whether they think the Government should opt out of providing these services. 2386 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: We are not going to have selective quoting of Hansard from back in May. The member should put the whole statement on the record and not mislead the House.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I remind the member for Bega that there is a proper way to conduct debate, and that is not how it is done. I remind him also that it is not done by interjecting continually.
Mr DAVID BORGER: On the one hand we have a $1.3 billion program that we can rightly be proud of for making progress in this area. On the other hand, what is the Opposition's plan? It has no disability services policy and no funding. It took to the election the commitment to cut 20,000 jobs from front-line services, including disability services. The only policy that the shadow Minister has offered is that the Government should outsource the provision of accommodation services. What a pathetic policy that is, to say to the community that they will cut jobs—
Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: I seek a ruling as to whether the member for Granville is introducing new material into the debate and whether that is within the standing orders.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! No new material has been introduced. The debate is being conducted in accordance with the standards accepted by the House.
Mr DAVID BORGER: It is time the Leader of the Opposition got his shadow Ministers working to develop policy and to present a positive alternative to the House. I am looking forward to it, but I have not yet seen any evidence of it. When I was elected I had great expectations, but it is just not there. As members of the House are aware, on 26 March 2006 the New South Wales Government launched—
[Interruption]
The member for Bega needs to get on the phone, call the Federal Minister and get some funding for people with disabilities and their families rather than make pointless interjections. As members of this House are aware, on 26 March 2006 the New South Wales Government launched Stronger Together, its 10-year plan for disability services. That plan is providing real money and real services on the ground for those who need it. It includes investment of $154 million in the past financial year and $192 million in the current financial year. Already that money is making a real difference to people with disabilities and their carers.
The policy has three key goals: strengthening families so that children with a disability can grow up with a family in the community; promoting community inclusion, or "Count Me in Too", so that adults with a disability have more opportunities to participate in paid employment or in the community; and improving the capacity of the disability services system to provide clearer entry and exit points based on need, to provide quality and value for money and to improve accountability, practices and policies. The Commonwealth Government could join us in doing that if it was not so busy playing games over an important national agreement.
Under the current State budget announced on 19 June, the second year of Stronger Together provides a total of 600 new therapy places at a cost of $3.3 million in the 2007-08 financial year. The Government understands the importance of respite services for families caring for a person with a disability, having doubled funding for these services since being elected in 1995. Some of the services are targeted directly at children with autism, while others support children and young people with a range of disabilities, including children with autism. Stronger Together represents real progress in improving the quality of life of people with disabilities and their families. I encourage the Opposition to get on the phone and stump up some support. There is a huge Federal Government surplus in this area. Let us not look at flashy election commitments; let us see if the Opposition can influence its colleagues to do something for those who need it: people with disabilities and their families.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2387
Ayes, 47
Mr Amery Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Beamer Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Ms Burton Mr Khoshaba Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Coombs Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Costa Ms McKay Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr McLeay Tellers, Ms D'Amore Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Firth Ms Meagher Mr Martin
Noes, 37
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Ms Goward Mr Piper Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Provest Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Maguire
Pairs
Ms Judge Mrs Hancock Mr Terenzini Mr Stokes
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Mr Amery Mr Gibson Mr Morris Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mr Pearce Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Borger Ms Hornery Mr Piper Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Rees Ms Burney Mr Khoshaba Mr Sartor Ms Burton Mr Koperberg Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Coombs Dr McDonald Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms McKay Mr West Mr Costa Mr McLeay Mr Whan Mr Daley Ms McMahon Ms D'Amore Ms Meagher Tellers, Ms Firth Ms Megarrity Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms Moore Mr Martin 2388 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Noes, 35
Mr Aplin Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr Baird Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr Baumann Mrs Hopwood Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Tellers, Ms Goward Mr Provest Mr George Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Maguire
Pairs
Ms Judge Mrs Hancock Mr Terenzini Mr Stokes
DROUGHT
Matter of Public Importance
Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [4.48 p.m.]: Tragedy in this country presents in the form of bushfires, floods, cyclones and droughts. Unfortunately, a drought lasts a lot longer than the other events and it is not always at the forefront. The long-term effects of the drought in the Western Division are well known to all members of this House. Unfortunately for the people out west, recently they have endured more droughts than they have seen good times. My comrade from Barwon will speak on issues that affect the Western Division.
In recent times the drought has claimed even more victims in places once considered drought proof. I look around the farming districts in my electorate and see communities financially threadbare and battling social problems created by a loss of income and the possibility of losing a lifetime of work. The support that has been provided by the Federal Government is commendable and the release of the latest package shows a further solid commitment to stick by farmers and rural communities. In one announcement $714 million was added in extra support. When the Premier was asked yesterday about waiving fixed water charges for irrigators he responded by suggesting the Government had spent $335 million to support farmers in drought. He forgot to say this has taken over 5 years.
The Victorian Minister for Water, the Hon. Tim Holding. has spoken to irrigators and water authorities and is considering the best means to provide relief to irrigators. Last year Victoria provided $5,000 to any irrigator who received less than 50 per cent of his allocation. It also paid 50 per cent of shire rates to irrigators in exceptional circumstances. The Victorian Cabinet will meet next week to consider waiving all fixed charges and extending the 50 per cent shire rates payment to all irrigators. The New South Wales Government will rely on the Federal Government grants of up to $20,000 to irrigators in the Murray-Darling to help pay their fixed water charges. The lack of response of the Iemma Government to its obligations to help farmers in need becomes obvious when compared with the actions of the Victorian Government.
The financial cost of drought to irrigators is demonstrated by the clear growth in average debt amongst farmers in the Riverina, the southern Riverina and the western Murray. Farmers are reducing their equity and feeling the stress. All farmers and irrigators in the Riverina, southern Riverina and the mid-west were encouraged by good autumn rains, followed by the Bureau of Meteorology's suggestion that the season would have sufficient rain to support the planting of crops. Encouraged by banks and the weather forecasters, farmers planted grain and forage crops. The planting of crops needed a substantial commitment in fertiliser, diesel and in some cases the purchase of seed.
Most farmers also were encouraged to forward sell about one-third of their anticipated crop. This has been a common practice for some growers but this season banks have encouraged farmers to forward sell. Most 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2389
contracts for wheat were signed at $260 per tonne. With the failure of all wheat crops a farmer may have to pay out a contract at a future cost of $550 per tonne. Government agencies identified hedging as the best practice for farmers and advised farmers accordingly. A farmer who has hedged his crop is hit with a double whammy: no crop and the need to pay out a contract for grain that, when due, will be at the highest price for grain ever recorded.
The shadow Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Andrew Fraser, accompanied me on a two-day tour of my electorate to see firsthand the deteriorating state of the crops and the problems faced by farmers and irrigators. On the first night of the Shadow Minister's visit we attended a combined irrigators meeting in Mildura. Approximately 800 irrigators were unhappy about the lack of State Government support during their time of need. By the end of two days the member for Coffs Harbour witnessed farmers in crisis. While this Government cannot be blamed for their circumstances, it certainly has an obligation to help.
During those two days, just to add insult to injury, we were confronted with the announcement that the Iemma Government would remove 16 teacher placements in Balranald. I have sat in this House since I was elected and heard the programmed criticism of the previous Coalition Government's removal of frontline jobs and, as recently as the last election, criticism of the Coalition suggesting frontline jobs will go. The Government has now pulled out 16 frontline workers from Balranald. Balranald has suffered enough job losses with the Carr-Iemma Government's decision to lock up Yanga Nature Reserve. The subsequent loss of about 100 full-time, part-time and contracted jobs is disastrous for the people of Balranald.
This Government has demonstrated its complete lack of empathy for a community suffering from the effects of drought. The job losses remove a further million dollars per annum from the community of Balranald. The effects of drought on main street businesses were outlined by the comments from the publican of the Tuppal Hotel, Finley, who stated that he could name the date business slowed down. Bruce McMaster, a farmer at Merriwagga, said that when farmers or their wives went to town, they left the children at home to avoid buying anything but necessities.
The Federal Government's announcement to extend exceptional circumstance funding to all business in towns of up to 10,000 will help business continue to service the needs of farmers in this drought. The New South Wales Government cannot continue to rely on the Federal Government to provide relief to farmers and use sustenance payments provided by the Federal Government to pay State Government charges. Today we see communities in crisis. We see people that have been affected by this drought and we see communities threadbare on social welfare. This Government has a moral responsibility to support these people and to ensure their health and state of wellbeing is preserved.
Yet another insult is a plan by the Department of Primary Industries to remove two fisheries officers in my electorate, close down the office at Broken Hill and remove a fisheries officer from Deniliquin. Apart from removing jobs from my electorate, it gives an open invitation for any poachers to cross the border and remove valuable native fish stocks from the rivers and estuaries in my electorate. The Government continually talks about the need to preserve our native forests, fauna and flora yet intends to remove fishing inspectors, which will open the door to every poacher to fish illegally along the rivers in the Darling and Murray-Darling areas. The reason given is that the Government cannot afford four-wheel-drive leasing. That is a pretty good reason to remove the fisheries officers, close down an office and allow the removal of fish stock from the river system! It is an absolute and utter disgrace. The lack of support by Government agencies to the areas affected by drought continues. The communities battle on and try to sustain existence. Government agencies and programs are continually removed and there is no recognition of the effects of drought on people in the area.
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.58 p.m.]: There is no doubt that the situation is grim for farmers right across the State. The drought seems to go on forever. We are now looking at the cumulative effect of five or six years of drought. As pointed out, there was the odd ray of hope when there was good rain in autumn and early winter in my area. Currently 71 per cent of the State is in drought, another 15 to 16 per cent is marginal and 13.3 per cent is deemed satisfactory. Every day that rain does not fall, the situation gets worse. The winter wheat crop of is 5 million hectares but more than 3 million hectares is in jeopardy. Farmers who believed the weather forecasts of autumn and winter rains and invested are now doomed to disappointment again.
The mostly dry conditions have seen several areas move back into drought in the Balranald-Wentworth and Brewarrina rural land protection board zones. Some areas have moved out of drought, including areas in the Hunter, Milparinka, areas around Tamworth and Tweed-Lismore, which seems to be the only part of the State that never suffers drought. As the drought drags on it takes its toll on all agricultural industries. Yesterday's 2390 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Sydney Morning Herald noted that this year's wine grape harvest is likely to be so small that some wineries will import product for the cask market. City people have been told they may not get any more cleanskin bargains. They will not get much sympathy from people in the bush about that. The State's water storage inflows have continued to be among the lowest on record. It has been reported that irrigation water in the Murray-Darling Basin is selling for up to 10 times the price it was 12 months ago. At the same time irrigators growing citrus, stone fruit and wine grapes have less than 10 per cent of their normal allocation—and the hot summer is still ahead.
Seasonal conditions remain poor across the cropping belt, except for the north-east and far south-east areas. Most other areas have received minimal rainfall since the big break around the end of April. For example, areas such as Nyngan and Hillston have not recorded any rain since June. Between 50 and 100 millimetres of rain is needed to maintain the yield potential of the surviving winter crop, to boost summer crop prospects and to alleviate water shortages. At this stage we can only pray that the rainfalls come, but the prospect is looking bleak. We will deal with those issues when we come to them. Let us face it: there is only limited potential for summer crops at this early stage. For example, the prospects for rice are very poor. I am meeting with rice representatives later today. Some areas are faring much worse than others. Brogo Dam near Bega is near full. In comparison, Keepit Dam near Gunnedah is at only 14 per cent capacity and the Menindee Lakes near Broken Hill are at 3 per cent. The Iemma Government has committed more than $335 million in drought assistance measures since 2002.
Earlier this month my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries announced another extension of our transport subsidy scheme at a cost of $12.1 million. That scheme is continually under review. It is a vital program for farmers, helping them with all-important transport costs. The Iemma Government is proud to continue this program and we will continue to do so until the rains come. Our other drought support programs remain in place, including our team of drought support workers. The drought support workers have been in place since January 2003 to provide advice, support and referral services for farmers and their families affected by this prolonged drought across New South Wales. They have done an exceptional job in helping farm families to access financial assistance and emotional support from government and non-government agencies, primarily through running more than 1,600 farm family gatherings and drought workshops, which have been attended by in excess of 80,000 people. These essential drought support workers will continue to coordinate farm family gathering events and information days to ensure our farmers and their families get the support they need as directly as possible.
I congratulate the Federal Government on its announcement yesterday of $714 million in drought assistance for farmers. This time I hope it actually spends the money. In the past the Federal Government has made some big announcements, but at the end of the day, for a host of reasons, the money has not gone through to the farmers. Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd also has welcomed the package. I am sure every member of this House will agree that the crippling effects of the drought are too important for the grubby partisan politics of some members on the other side. I also welcome the recent announcement by the Federal Government to extend exceptional circumstances assistance in 26 New South Wales areas. This Government pushed the Federal Government to relax the criteria for exceptional circumstances assistance. The Federal Government made it very difficult, but is now relaxing the criteria. The test will be whether the money flows on to the people who need it. In the past it has not. Federal Ministers have made big dollar announcements, but at the end of the day a lot of that money has been unspent. Hopefully, that will not happen this time.
The extension applies to areas where exceptional circumstances assistance was due to expire on 31 March next year. It means that eligible farmers and farm-dependent small businesses will continue to have access to much-needed income support and business assistance until at least 30 September next year when the situation will be revised. We need to recognise that farm businesses are at the end of their tether. I have met with a number of farm businesses in my electorate in recent weeks. They cannot run their businesses any more efficiently. If their customers do not have the wherewithal to buy and spend, then they are at risk. It is important that we acknowledge their plight.
As all members know, the length and severity of this drought are exceptional. Whether it is a one in 100 years or one in 200 years drought is a moot point because it has affected almost all farming families and rural communities. Even if we were to now go into good seasons, it will take many, many years for most people and their properties to recover. The Federal Government is now offering to pay people to walk off their properties. That is a real tragedy and it underscores the desperation of some people. Some farmers are saying they do not have an alternative. They not only face financial disaster—I believe they are being offered $150,000 in some cases plus $20,000 for retraining—but because of their emotional attachment to their properties, 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2391
particularly farming families who have been on their properties for generations, they will have great difficulty adjusting. We need to work together to help the farming communities get through this troubled period.
As this Government has demonstrated from day one, we have been prepared to support farming families. We have provided $335 million, and we are continuing to provide assistance. We are also continuing to apply pressure on those who have the excess of riches and receive all the taxation revenue—the Federal Government. We know at the moment it is spending in desperation to try to get re-elected. Its efforts will be in vain. There is no question that the Rudd government will stand behind farmers alongside the Iemma Government. That is the prospect faced by the Opposition. It will make no difference to the assistance that will flow to farmers. We have to make sure that the Federal Government's $714 million is spent in a timely manner and goes to the people who need it. We must oversee that issue. The Iemma Government will stand behind our farming families, helping all the way.
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [5.08 p.m.]: I acknowledge my comrade the member for Murray-Darling for bringing forward this matter of public importance. One of the reasons the Federal Government has been able to allocate close to another $1 billion worth of funding to support rural communities across this country is the Federal Government's good economic management. One of the reasons the Coalition has been very good for the bush and why the bush needs the Coalition to be re-elected is the good work that has been done by our Federal colleagues, whom I work with regularly, such as John Cobb, John Anderson and Mark Vaile. They have been a credit during very difficult times. One of the iconic characteristics of the Australian nature is that when things get tough we do not leave anyone behind, no matter where they are from. This drought continues to bite. I referred to it in my inaugural speech in Parliament by saying that we are in danger of falling into a situation of national crisis. We are in that now. It is important that we do not leave anyone behind and that governments take a responsible attitude to supporting farming communities and all those people involved.
In my area, the Gwydir, which takes in a large proportion of the irrigation industry and dryland farming in northern New South Wales, we are predominantly agricultural based. More than one-third of our people are directly employed in agricultural pursuits. This year we will see the lowest plantings ever of any irrigation crops, and any summer crop potentially. The millions of acres that have been planted under wheat have all but fallen over, except in isolated pockets, and we are facing a disaster. How will that translate into the wider community? The effects will be felt reasonably shortly because this disaster will translate into a food security issue. We are reaching a stage now in Bourke, where I was attending a meeting on a number of issues, where large proportions of citrus and permanent plantings have been grubbed out; they have been stumped right back and will take four or five years to recover.
It is the same on the Murray-Darling. I spoke to dairy farmers at the Darling Dust and Drought Conference. The Murray-Darling Association met in Bourke three weeks ago and I spoke to irrigators and dairy farmers. One dairy farmer had 400 cows and two weeks of food left. I asked him what he was going to do and he said he had no idea. He had no answer and was going to walk away. That is prevalent right across that agricultural belt, right across the Murray-Darling Basin. Some 600,000 people are directly affected by what is going on, and we are in for a very rough trot. I have just come back from Enngonia where we were able to successfully put in place an injunction, so to speak, through the Federal Government to stop the Queensland Government selling 1,100 megalitres, which would have been a disaster in our already overallocated river systems.
I congratulate the people of Enngonia and the Warrego River system for doing that. We are on a ride that is full of pain. Anecdotally we are going through an agricultural restructuring on the eastern side of this country and my advice is that at least 20 per cent of farmers will not survive this drought over the next 12 months to two years. Again I congratulate the Federal Government on its response. This is all leading to issues that are impacting upon our towns. I again congratulate the Federal Government for acknowledging small towns and businesses and for extending the exceptional circumstances assistance to all our small businesses. I do not have any towns in my electorate with over 10,000 residents, which is why it is quite important to the community of Barwon. I also highlight the issue the drought is creating—the large mental health issue.
An anecdote from the Australian Psychological Society says that research has clearly identified a sense of hopelessness as one of the strongest risk factors for attempting suicide. The evidence further shows that in general men develop their self-esteem through their role as a breadwinner. When factors absolutely outside their control, such as drought, impact on this ability to be in control of that role, men may become depressed, which puts both the man and his family at risk. This drought has certainly placed a significant number of people at risk 2392 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
and I believe it will place the country at risk when it comes to issues of food security. We need help from the State Government, and one way is to drop the fixed water charges.
Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [5.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Barwon for his contribution and the member for Bathurst. The member for Bathurst gave us some statistical details about what is happening with the drought in New South Wales and I am sure the farmers who are suffering the drought are well aware of the circumstances they are in. Obviously, what is at the front of the minds of irrigators is some sort of relief from fixed water charges. There are people on exceptional circumstances who are being confronted with bills of $14,000 for fixed water charges for water they will not receive. That is not acceptable under any circumstances. There is not a consumer that I know who would be prepared to pay that sum of money for zero.
This area needs some major consideration by this Government. The Government has been avoiding the issue. The Victorian Government has fronted up; it has seen its obligation and it has done something about it. Something has to happen. At a forum in Balranald, attended by the Deputy Leader of The Nationals and myself, rate relief was mentioned from the floor as a major contribution that the State Government could make: It would give some relief from shire rates to the farmers. The member for Bathurst spoke about drought support workers. They have done a great job and the State Government has done a great job to provide drought support workers. But the contract of those drought relief workers finishes in December and at this stage we have heard nothing from the Government about what is going to happen after December. We need to know if we will have drought support workers after December.
The fodder transport subsidy, which plays a big part in supplying feed for many people carrying stock—and there are fewer of them today—is $20,000 per annum. From what I see, most of the farmers have de-stocked: any fodder they had they have sold into the marketplace because it gave them a greater return than trying to keep stock alive, to the point that sheep sold for less money than it cost to feed them. That is a fact of life. We need to recognise that dairy farmers are the big consumers of fodder; they need to provide fodder, they need to buy it. Most of them are buying more than $100,000 of fodder per annum to keep their dairy herd alive, and their $20,000 is spent in less than six months. I would like to see that subsidy for dairy farmers doubled to $40,000. I am sure the budget for that fodder subsidy will not be spent under the current circumstances, so there is flexibility and we can do it. The State Government's commitment of $67 million per annum to the drought covers only basic obligations.
During this drought where has the Minister for Primary Industries been? We have not seen him. He has not gone out to see any of those farmers and any of the circumstances those farmers are placed in to understand what is happening and how the Government can help. I am sure by going into and meeting with those farming communities he would find that those people are suffering very badly with this drought. Our Government has a role to support those people and ensure their health and security are supported in the best possible manner. At this stage they have seen no-one from the Government. Just for the sake of moral support and the recognition of their problems they need someone to come out, as the Deputy Leader of the Nationals did in my electorate. The Minister should take a tour with me, listen to what people have to say, listen to their problems, and somewhere in that there may be a solution. The solution does not have to cost an arm and a leg but there must be some way of supporting these people in need. The Minister needs to be out there, out of Sydney and into the country, having a good look around at what farmers are facing in the Murray-Darling and Barwon electorates.
Discussion concluded.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
DR GRAEME REEVES
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.20 p.m.]: I call for an urgent Government investigation of the situation I will now outline to the House. I wish to detail the story of a woman in Bega with whom I have met on 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2393
a number of occasions and who has suffered terribly at the hands of gynaecologist Dr Graeme Reeves. This woman does not wish to be identified but is considering telling her tragic story to the national media in the hope that Dr Reeves is prevented from working once and for all and that NSW Health reviews its employment process.
In 2002 this woman—whom I will refer to as Mrs C—was to have a pre-cancerous 20-millimetre skin abnormality excised from her labia minora. Dr Reeves drew a diagram on the surgical consent form to show her the extent of the procedure that was to be performed. However, when the patient regained consciousness after the surgery, she found that an area 95 millimetres by 55 millimetres by 34 millimetres had been cut from her genital region, all for a lesion with a 20-millimetre diameter. Mrs C says she was shattered and to this day feels mutilated. For two years she says going to the toilet was "electric agony". Mrs C also has had to endure personal hygiene issues because her urine now puddles due to the absence of a proper outlet. On reviewing her case a gynaecological oncologist said that the surgery performed on Mrs C had been out of favour for 30 years due to the significant level of deformity that it causes and the large amount of normal skin removed.
In July 1997 Dr Reeves was ordered to cease the clinical practice of obstetrics after a professional standards committee of the Medical Board found him guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The same inquiry found that he had an impaired mental capacity to practise medicine. Conditions were put on Dr Reeves' continued practice of medicine, including his continued psychiatric treatment. As I said, Dr Reeves was also ordered to cease the clinical practice of obstetrics.
How is it then that in April 2002 Dr Reeves found employment with the then Greater Southern Area Health Service as a visiting medical officer in obstetrics and gynaecology? Dr Reeves accepted the job knowing full well that he was prohibited from the clinical practice of obstetrics. Where was the check of his employment history, his referees and his record by the area health service and the Government? That is standard practice when any employer fills a staff vacancy, but apparently it is not for our health service. When the health service trusted the word of Dr Reeves it made a mistake that Mrs C lives with every day.
Moving on to 2004, Dr Reeves' employment with the Greater Southern Area Health Service was brought to the attention of the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales. In July 2004, the tribunal found that Dr Reeves was guilty of gross professional misconduct of the most serious kind. There is no doubt that Dr Reeves' actions amount to gross professional misconduct. However, how should we describe the action, or lack thereof, of the Labor Government and the area health service during the selection process that led to the employment of Dr Reeves? We need a full and detailed review of the processes surrounding the employment of doctors and health professionals in our hospitals in the Greater Southern Area Health Service. What happened to Mrs C was preventable, but has anything been done since to ensure it will not happen again?
In 2004 Judge McGuire of the tribunal struck Dr Reeves from the register of practitioners in New South Wales and spoke of his barefaced lies and calculated omissions in providing information that he knew would affect his employment application. I call on the Minister for Health to conduct an investigation into the employment of Dr Reeves and a review of similar processes across her department. The residents of my electorate and, indeed, New South Wales rightly expect that an obstetrician, gynaecologist or anyone else who gets a job in our health system is qualified and able to practise. How was this man let loose in the system?
Mrs C's story was detailed recently in the Bega District News, and I understand that a number of other women have also found the strength to come forward. In August this year Mrs C won a civil action for medical negligence and was awarded damages of $164,000. However, Dr Reeves' insurers are denying liability and Reeves himself declares his financial position as dire. Mrs C is now considering her next move. I hope that one day she might be able to find some closure to this disturbing chapter of her life. One element of that process for Mrs C is the knowledge that this can never be allowed to happen again. The question is whether the Minister for Health will launch the investigation and review that are needed to ensure Mrs C has that peace of mind. I call on the Minister today to do so.
Mrs C has also asked that I flag the need for improved complaints handling within NSW Health. She has had to go into debt so that her concerns receive satisfactory attention, but there are many people who do not have that option. These people need to be heard so that our health system is the best that it can be. I hope that this investigation is launched.
WALLSEND DISTRICT LIBRARY
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.25 p.m.]: What price do we put on education, socialisation and self-esteem? Every community needs a focal point that defines it and plays an 2394 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
integral role in its cohesiveness. I was proud to be informed of the outstanding success of a new facility in my electorate. I am proud that Newcastle City Council and the State Labor Government were willing to take the risk and invest in this resource. I am proud that this new central meeting place was pristinely and conveniently built in the growing Wallsend CBD.
I am proud that our Government is taking positive action towards encouraging better education. I am proud to be affiliated with a government with such foresightedness. I am proud to be a member of the Government that not only has one eye on now but also has the other eye on the future. I am proud that the people of Wallsend finally have the best of the future now. I am proud that my fellow members of the Wallsend community have embraced this facility with gusto. I am proud to announce that this facility now boasts 18,490 members.
I am proud to inform members that since its inception in May 2006 this facility has had more than 270,000 visitors, 600,000 items borrowed and 7,000 new registrations. I am proud to announce that it is so popular that it received a near perfect score for customer satisfaction of 4.8 out of five in a study undertaken by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation. The study also found that the economic impact of the facility on the community had increased significantly in comparison with the former facility. I am proud to warmly invite members to view for themselves its striking and award-winning aesthetics. I am proud that this superstructure has been included in the ECOSTAR program, which aims to implement and promote sustainable energy and resource use at our local facilities.
I am proud that since opening it has become a much-loved jewel in our district. I am proud that our Wallsend youth finally have a contemporary outlet for recreational and educational needs. I am proud that this new establishment provides a permanent base for the Wallsend Historical Society, of which I am a member, thereby encompassing the past, present and future. I am proud that this building provides a home for the Wallsend Ladies Probus. There are currently 20 various organisations, comprising private companies, church groups, government organisations and community groups that utilise the library for meetings.
I am proud of the nurturing that occurs within this structure and how effectively it caters to our young families in my thriving community. I am proud that senior members of our community feel welcomed by our caring Government. I am proud that people who do not even live in the district who come and enjoy the abundance it has to offer are recommending this facility. My pride in this building—the Wallsend District Public Library—has made me feel only more privileged to be the representative for Wallsend. Based on this extraordinary success I have faith that our Government will keep building on this milestone so that the community of Wallsend and its surroundings proudly reflects my Government's unwavering commitment to being the best that we can be, just like the Wallsend District Library.
OCEAN SHORES NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [5.29 p.m.]: On behalf of residents in the Ocean Shores area I raise the issue of excessive noise, especially at night, as a result of trucks now using the upgraded Yelgun to Brunswick Heads section of the Pacific Highway. Whilst most people understand and agree that the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border must be upgraded to dual carriageway as quickly as possible—and I certainly advocate this cause continually—it is important that those communities who adjoin the highway be protected from the excessive noise being generated by an increasing number of trucks, especially at night.
Of particular concern to Ocean Shores residents is the placement of ripple strips on the upgraded highway and the noise generated by trucks running on these ripple strips. This noise is causing sleep deprivation and all of its flow-on effects. Recently I attended a meeting of over 200 angry Ocean Shores residents who voiced their concerns about highway noise in vigorous and passionate terms. Essentially what the residents want is removal of the ripple strips through this residential area, an immediate commencement of noise monitoring tests by the Roads and Traffic Authority or its subcontractor and the construction of noise mitigation barriers to reduce noise levels for Ocean Shores residents. I undertook at that public meeting to try to get a meeting with the Minister for Roads and a small delegation of local residents. I am hopeful such a meeting can occur soon, although it is now well over a month since I asked his office for this meeting. In the meantime a letter from the roads Minister to the Federal member for Richmond has been received that raises serious concerns in my mind about the advice the Minister is getting. For example, the letter states:
The RTA will measure the maximum noise levels on sections of the project with and without the audible edge lines to compare the difference …
26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2395
This statement clearly indicates the Minister's lack of knowledge of the project as there are no sections of the road at Ocean Shores that do not have the ripple strips. The Minister for Roads further states in his letter:
If the noise levels exceed the approved criteria for the project, then further noise mitigation works will be considered.
When the project was approved by the then Acting Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in 1999, condition 34 required the Roads and Traffic Authority to ensure the implementation of further noise mitigation measures if the noise exceeded that allowable. The road has been operational since 11 July 2007, yet no noise monitoring has been undertaken since then and the Minister is now trying to back away from the conditions of approval. The Roads and Traffic Authority does not have an option. It must put in place noise mitigation to comply with the conditions of ministerial consent, should noise levels exceed those specified in the approval. This is why it is so important for noise monitoring to be done now and not wait for several more months. I call on the Minister to direct the Roads and Traffic Authority to commence noise monitoring now and not to wait any longer.
A representative of the affected residents stated in a letter to the Minister for Roads that the Roads and Traffic Authority claims to have received only 34 complaints about the noise for this section of the highway. Yet at a public meeting at Ocean Shores in August over 200 people unanimously confirmed their complaints in the presence of two senior authority officers. The residents further submitted to the authority a petition containing 120 signatures of residents directly affected by the noise. At that meeting the Roads and Traffic Authority representative was also handed a location map with affected residences clearly marked.
The use of ripple strips was also raised at that meeting. A Government report following the use of the same strips on the F3 in Sydney found that the strips caused a significant noise problem, which led to the Roads and Traffic Authority upgrading the noise mitigation measures on that section of road. It is difficult to understand, given the authority's knowledge of the problems with using ripple strips in residential areas why it chose to use them in a residential area such as Ocean Shores, especially as other sections of the upgraded Pacific Highway in isolated areas do not have ripple strips. In addition, the use of the ripple strips was not advised in the public documentation available for comment prior to construction.
In relation to the noise levels to be monitored, I believe that it is inappropriate for these levels to be averaged over a nine-hour period when the noise that wakes people up and disrupts their sleep is often irregular loud noise like compression braking or trucks running on the ripples, which may last less than a minute but which causes sleep deprivation. Many of the residents affected by the noise created by this upgraded section of the Pacific Highway are retirees and young families who chose Ocean Shores for the peace and quiet it offered. Their peace is being shattered by noise generated by an ever-increasing number of trucks on this new road especially when these trucks run on the ripple strips. They need noise monitoring to be done straight away. I call upon the Minister for Roads to address this issue as a matter of urgency to deliver justice for the residents of Ocean Shores.
MENAI YOUTH EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai) [5.34 p.m.]: The Menai electorate is blessed with large areas of bushland. Sadly this generally good fortune can have a downside in the ever-present threat of bushfire with the inherent risk to life and property. Fortunately these risks are well managed by local fire authorities and minimised by the diligence of well-informed local residents, including the growing number of community fire units. I make those remarks while the Minister for Emergency Services is in the chair this evening. I know he is familiar with the good work done by all the fire units in my area. In spite of the risks that living in such an environment poses, the beautiful bushland setting is one of the main reasons people choose to live in the suburbs of the greater Menai area. It is a significant quality of life issue for local families in particular and provides recreational opportunities not available to residents in many other parts of Sydney.
On the morning of Saturday 25 August eight young footy mates were, in their words, "mucking about"—and I use their words because I anticipate that a group of 14-year-old boys might not want me to use the word playing—in bushland at IIlawong. However, this idyllic picture was suddenly and potentially tragically transformed. Tyler Williamson was swinging from a rope hanging from a tree. The rope broke and Tyler back flipped almost four metres onto rocks, fracturing his scull and neck. He was bleeding profusely and partially scalped. Despite this shocking turn of events, I think all honourable members will be inspired by the clear thinking and crucial actions of Tyler's seven mates.
Scaling the rugged terrain to reach Tyler, Ryan Burke, whose nickname is Mullett, maintained pressure on the bleeding with literally the T-shirt off his back and the T-shirts from the other boys too. Mitchell Jennings 2396 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
kept the barely conscious Tyler talking. Apparently the boys picked up these techniques from watching medical drama shows dealing with head injuries. So it is true after all that television can be educational. The other boys, Harry Kelly, Shaun O'Regan, Alex Caldwell, David Pasqualino and Reese Mariner, sprang into action to raise the alarm in every possible direction. Some ran down to the nearby Georges River looking for passing boats while another called 000 and waited to guide ambulance officers to the remote accident site. Calls were also made to parents. Thank goodness for mobile phones!
Tyler was eventually transported by boat across the Georges River and admitted to St George hospital in a critical condition. He was in intensive care for four days and will need to wear a neck brace for three months. A substantial amount of skin had to be reattached to his scalp and, due to the serious infection risk, he is on a strong antibiotics program. On September 4 the front page of the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader summed up this incredible story in headlines that read "Lucky to be alive" with a subheading "Mates come to the rescue". After reading that article, Ian Barker of Miranda penned a letter to the editor published on 11 September 2007 congratulating the boys. Mr Barker said:
It is the kind of mateship that Australia is known for. We saw it in WW1 and WW2 and I know from first hand experience what it meant to have mateship in Vietnam.
Fortunately these boys were not in a war situation and we would all hope that they never have to endure that environment. However, they were certainly faced with a shocking dilemma, with potentially tragic consequences. Some have subsequently admitted that they had first feared that Tyler had been killed in the fall. The Williamson family is in no doubt that the boys' courageous actions saved Tyler's life. In fact, I also take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge the extent of the gratitude expressed by the Williamson family. Tyler's mother, Jo-Ann, in particular, has been tireless in her efforts to ensure that the seven boys receive recognition for their actions. These young men are certainly a credit to their families and the school communities of Menai High School, Aquinas College and their former primary schools.
Robert Shaffer once said: "We must view young people not as empty bottles to be filled but as candles to be lit." The time, energy and love invested in each of these boys over the past 14 years is already paying dividends and producing good citizens. Too often I hear people talking down the motivation and capabilities of all the young people in our community. Perhaps I should remind those people of another old saying: "Before you go and criticise the younger generation, just remember who raised them." In conjunction with Jo-Ann Williamson, I am seeking every appropriate opportunity for Reese, David, Alex, Shaun, Harry, Mitchell and Ryan to be formally recognised for their efforts. I am sure that all honourable members will join me today in wishing Tyler Williamson a full recovery and a bright future.
PORT STEPHENS ELECTORATE OYSTER INDUSTRY
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [5.39 p.m.]: This evening I inform the House of the latest developments in the ongoing battle to keep the traditional Port Stephens oyster industry healthy and vibrant and at the forefront of the Hunter's aquacultural economy. As many members would be aware, in 2005 the Port Stephens oyster industry suffered a serious setback with the discovery of faecal and viral matter in routine health checks of oyster leases in the Tilligerry Creek. As the mayor of Port Stephens at that time, I was horrified when a regular meeting with local oyster growers and council revealed that the contamination would lead to the eventual closure of those leases.
Failing septic systems in Salt Ash and Bobs Farm were identified as the cause of viral contamination within Tilligerry Creek, one of Port Stephens' tributaries. One small region of that creek was closed to the harvesting of oysters. Fourteen growers were affected, with three in particular suffering a loss of over 90 per cent of that year's harvest, effectively putting them out of business. Although Port Stephens Council was quick to regulate and require the immediate upgrade of failing septic systems and to pay for the installation of pollution control traps and water quality monitors in Tilligerry Creek drains, the damage had been done.
It is worth noting that up until the mid-1990s septic tank management was a shared responsibility between the State Government's Health Department and local government. It was Port Stephens Council that took on the full responsibility for these safety measures. Yesterday the New South Wales Food Authority advised Port Stephens Council that after two years zone 58 of Tilligerry Creek is once more safe for the harvesting of oysters. But what should have been a time for celebration amongst the Port Stephens oyster farming community is instead a bittersweet moment, as already two family businesses, stalwarts of the Port Stephens oyster industry for several generations, have had to abandon their leases and sell their equipment, intending to leave the industry for good. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2397
Although the State Government might have abandoned its responsibility to provide safe and effective sewage disposal solutions in New South Wales, it is still the regulating body with regard to the leasing and licensing of oyster farms. This surely carries some level of responsibility from the State toward the farmers. Yet that responsibility was abandoned and no financial support for this regional industry, which provides 7 per cent of New South Wales total oyster crop, was forthcoming. Had the State Government stepped up to the plate and provided financial underwriting for affected oyster growers to remain in the industry for only two years, we would have three families going back to work this week, in a position to repay any loans that might have been granted.
When I wrote to the Premier in December 2005 to formally request compensation for our oyster farmers until such a time as they could return to harvesting their leases, it took nine months to receive a reply from the Director General of the Premier's Department. In that letter, dated 6 September 2006, I was informed that the Premier's Office had sought legal advice and that the State bore no responsibility to these farmers at all. For farmers like Mark Shepard and Glenn Brown, who had gone without income for 15 months and had laid off staff, and whose family businesses had already begun selling off equipment and removing lease infrastructure, this was too little too late. I look forward to Tilligerry oysters once more gracing restaurant menus around the State. I am pleased that the New South Wales Food Authority has swiftly resolved pollution in this region, but my sympathies remain with those families forced off the land in another example of the State Labor Government's contempt for those it purports to represent.
BANKSTOWN ELECTORATE CANCER COUNCIL RELAY FOR LIFE
Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown) [5.43 p.m.]: Probably the most important event in my electorate in the entire year was the Cancer Council Relay for Life, which was conducted over last weekend. It was an outstanding success and raised more than $80,000 for the New South Wales Cancer Council. I commend the Bankstown community for the way it came together to ensure the success of the event and to highlight the devastating effects that cancer has on our community. Referring to Bankstown as a microcosm, in the period 2000 to 2004 there were approximately 4,000 new cases of cancer in the Bankstown local government area alone and 1,776 cancer deaths. We all have to live with the consequences of cancer. Indeed, everyone has been touched in one way or another by the terrible, insidious disease, which affects the morale of families and often, in their final days, destroys the dignity of those suffering from it
Over the weekend there was a family atmosphere at Bankstown. The event highlighted the positive ways we can move forward and the hope that one day we will find a cure for the disease. I commend the New South Wales Cancer Council for running the relays for life throughout New South Wales and for its hard work in raising awareness that money is needed to find a cure. Through the events it organises, the Cancer Council raises money for research, education, patient support and information for the community.
I acknowledge some important people who attended the event. In particular, I acknowledge Wayne Trotman, chairperson of Bankstown Relay for Life; Councillor Tania Milhailuk, Mayor of Bankstown; Belinda Brennan, Co-ordinator, Greater Western Sydney Region for the Cancer Council, Daryl Melham, Federal member for Banks; the Hon. Helen Westwood, MLC, and a councillor on Bankstown City Council; Councillor Ian Stromborg; Councillor Allan Winterbottom and the directors of the Bankstown Sports Club, which over the years has provided excellent support. I also acknowledge Jim Ronis, Dick Phillips, Vern Falconer and Alex Fulcher, who raised the Bankstown Sports Club flag for cancer support. Also in attendance was Jason Clare, the Australian Labor Party candidate for Blaxland, who is doing a wonderful job supporting the local community and ensuring that future opportunities will be best met through his representations.
I mention also John Engisch, the Chief Executive Officer of the Torch newspaper, and his wife, Carolyn, who have been tremendous in their support of Bankstown Relay for Life. This event would not be such a success without their support. Their son Trent, the General Manager of the Torch, was the master of ceremonies for the event. He had to talk for 25 hours over the two days. His brother Christian spent 25 hours cooking sausages and hamburgers for the participants. Also in attendance were survivors of cancer. There are too many to mention, but I acknowledge Joan Wagstaff, Vick Beaumont and a good friend of mine, Barbara Gill, who has suffered greatly. In 2000 she was diagnosed with cancer of the stomach. It moved to the spleen, then to the bowel and then to the oesophagus. She spent many weeks in hospital and has had six tumours removed in the last 12 months. Despite all that, she spent 25 hours walking and supporting others.
The Bankstown Relay for Life highlights the extent of cancer support in Bankstown and, hopefully, the money raised will help to save lives. My office, through Leah Tucker and Ingrid Winter, was also instrumental 2398 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
in raising money. Those two staff members gave up their free time to make this event a success and they turned up last weekend with more than 50 people to make up my team, Pollies-Unsaturated, which raised $14,000.
NARRABRI ARTS AND DEMENTIA EXHIBITION
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [5.48 p.m.]: At the outset I congratulate the Bankstown community on such a wonderful event. Last week I had the honour of opening an art exhibition entitled "Arts and Dementia: Creativity and the Individual" at the Crossing Theatre in Narrabri. It was one of the most pleasurable experiences I have had since becoming the member for Barwon. I commend the dementia support adviser with Narrabri Community Health, Dot Craig, for her efforts and inspiration in establishing this wonderful program. I also acknowledge the wonderful chief executive officer of Namoi Valley aged care facility, Maree Taylor, for her efforts in bringing the project together. Dementia Awareness Week ran from 16 to 22 September 2007. The theme this year focused on creativity in the individual, and the community drew inspiration for their local activity from that title. The Narrabri Dementia Support Group applied for funding through Alzheimer's Australia and received $500 for the Narrabri exhibition and another $500 for the exhibition in Moree.
Some of the comments that were made on the night were from the artists themselves. A number of volunteer artists worked with residents from Namoi Valley Aged Care. David Pearce said the artists were initially apprehensive, but after their first visit they became more relaxed and enjoyed their time with the residents. Local year 12 students were also involved. One arts student was involved with the residents in their art and two music students played the flute at the exhibition. All the artists have suggested that they would like to return to the facility and continue to work in art with the residents of Namoi Valley Aged Care. Stories that came out of the evening were both humorous and sad. While some residents could not remember painting their artwork, it was evident on the night that they had all enjoyed themselves and were excited and stimulated by the experience. Well over 100 people attended the evening and smiles could be seen on the faces of many of the carers and family members. This good news story will be replicated this week in Moree. Unfortunately, I will not be there.
I acknowledge the local artists who stepped up and worked with Dot Craig in the project: Hazel Frater, Jo Jennson, David Pearce, Andrew Wales and Brock Cherry—a mixture of people from around the community who worked with the dementia residents. The work they produced ranged from contemporary works and watercolours to charcoal and collage and was quite outstanding. The aged care residents who took part in the artists and residents program were Felecia de Lepervanche, Freda Bradley, Charlie Wilkinson, Clare Thompson, Marj Southwood, Neta Miller, Marie Newtown, Roy Hobden, Jean McGrady, Anne Lee, Jean Crutcher, Mollie Gibson, Nell McMullin, Iosabell Wallace, Ellen Hardy and Monica Hodges. All were present on the evening and had a great night. We look forward to continuing to grow that exhibition next year.
Like the previous speaker, the member for Bankstown, I acknowledge another group in the community that has done a fantastic job. The Gilgandra cancer fundraising group has raised over $360,000 in recent years to provide accommodation in Dubbo, particularly around the Dubbo oncology unit. The group provides funding to their local hospital and support for patients who have home care and need transport and accommodation. They also contribute to cancer research. That tremendous group, which is becoming quite active, is well chaired by Bryson Luff and people like Barb Garbutt and Helen Oates, who contribute so much to the fundraising campaign and help maintain the quality of life for residents in central western New South Wales.
PETER ANDERSON HONOURED CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF PENRITH CEREMONY
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [5.53 p.m.]: Last month my wife and I had the pleasure to be present at a special Penrith City Council civic reception held to confer upon the Hon. Peter Thomas Anderson the status of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith, in recognition of the contribution he has made to the city over the past 30 years. In attendance were my parliamentary colleagues the member for Mulgoa; the member for Penrith; the former member for Penrith, the Hon. Faye Lo Po', AM; the mayor of Penrith, Councillor Pat Sheehy; local councillors from both sides of the political spectrum and many other distinguished guests. All members here will acknowledge that to contribute to public life one needs to have the unquestioned support of family. On this occasion, showing their support of many years, Peter was accompanied by his wife Kay, daughter Dominique, son Jeremy and Jeremy's wife Rebecca. When introducing Peter, Mayor Pat Sheehy, commented:
The spirit of a city is embodied in its people, and I'm proud to say our Penrith community is a committed and generous one, working for the betterment of both the City and its residents. But occasionally an individual stands out by making such significant contributions that they deserve special recognition. I am sure that those of you here tonight fully appreciate that Peter Anderson is one such individual.
26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2399
My first meeting with Peter was back in 1976 when I was a junior clerk in the Department of the Attorney General and Justice. Peter was working on the staff of the then Minister for Justice, the Hon. Ron Mulock. We would occasionally walk together at the end of the day to Wynyard Station talking about various issues. Little did I know at the time that Peter was destined for bigger things. Had I then been aware of his heritage, perhaps I might have had some inkling of where he was headed, as his late father, Keith, and his mother, Kathleen, were both members of Parliament.
Peter was born in Sydney in 1947 and moved to the Penrith area in 1971. He has been a staunch advocate for the city ever since. Peter joined the Australian Labor Party in 1962 and held executive branch, electorate council and municipal committee positions, as well as an executive position on the New South Wales Youth Council. He has also been a State conference delegate. Peter has fulfilled many roles throughout his impressive career since joining the public service in 1964. He joined the New South Wales Police Force in 1967 and became a police prosecutor in 1972. His record of service to the Penrith community includes being deputy mayor of the City of Penrith from 1977 to 1979, an alderman on Penrith City Council from 1977 to 1983, the member for Nepean from 1978 to 1981 and the member for Penrith from 1981 to 1988.
He served as a councillor on Prospect County Council from 1977 to 1980 and was chairman for two years. He was also as the member for Liverpool from 1989 to 1995. As a New South Wales Government Minister, Peter served as Minister for Services from 1981 to 1982, as Minister for Police from 1981 to 1982, as Minister for Police and Emergency Services from 1982 to 1986, as Minister for Corrective Services from 1983 to 1984, as Minister Assisting the Premier from 1985 to 1986, as Minister for Local Government, Minister for Youth and Community Services, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1986, as Minister for the Drug Offensive from 1986 to 1988 and as Minister for Health from 1986 to 1988. That is undoubtedly a distinguished parliamentary career. It was during the time that Peter was Minister for Police in 1985 that I was recruited to the Police Department to head up the ministerial liaison unit and our paths crossed again. It is amazing how the world goes around.
I recall that after his parliamentary career Peter had a short stint as a radio announcer on 2GB, but his skills and expertise were not lost to the community because later he was appointed by the New South Wales Government as a member of numerous boards, committees and inquiries. These included the Darling Harbour Authority, the Tow Truck Authority, the Wentworth Area Health Service, Westmead Children's Hospital, the Greater Western Sydney Health Services Group, the Southern Health Services Group and the Ministerial Standing Committee on Hearing. In 2005 Macquarie University appointed Peter Adjunct Professor and Director of the Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. He has been a member of various community organisations and has been instrumental in the cultural development of the city of Penrith. That is clearly demonstrated in the vital role he has played in the success of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, the Penrith Regional Gallery and the Lewers bequest. In June 1999 Peter was made a Member of the Order of Australia. I am sure everyone would agree that Penrith City Council's decision to bestow upon Peter the status of Honoured Citizen of Penrith is a very fitting tribute.
LICENCE RENEWALS FOR DRIVERS OVER 75 YEARS
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.58 p.m.]: Older drivers in the Cronulla electorate have overwhelmingly rejected the 10 kilometres radius restriction from home for drivers over the age of 85 proposed by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and outlined in the Licensing of Older Drivers discussion paper. I conducted a survey of 4,000 residents over the age of 75 in the Cronulla electorate. More than 1,500 older drivers responded to the survey. While supporting the need for thorough medical examinations after the age of 75, particularly for eyesight, respondents rejected the proposed 10 kilometres radius restriction. A 10 kilometres radius restriction would place a severe limitation on older drivers visiting family and friends and attending medical appointments, church and the many activities engaged in by senior citizens. Such limitations would severely curtail the quality of life of senior citizens by reducing their mobility and independence and making them prisoners in their own homes.
Many older drivers travel thousands of kilometres a year to visit family and to holiday in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Others are actively involved in volunteer work assisting others, in many cases people younger than themselves. With the move by the State Labor Government to specialise hospital services, many residents need to travel outside the Sutherland shire for treatment that Sutherland Hospital does not provide or to visit loved ones in other Sydney hospitals. The Government is waving a big stick at older drivers by threatening them that unless they accept the 10 kilometres radius restriction they will need to pass the dreaded driving test at 85 years of age. Many respondents referred to the harshness of these tests and the anxiety 2400 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
suffered by those who were subjected to them. No evidence has been produced that older drivers cause more road accidents than any other group of drivers. The NRMA has stated that there is no evidence in Australia or abroad to suggest that these restrictions will make any difference to road safety standards, particularly since older drivers are not the age group causing the majority of problems on our roads.
The NRMA further stated that drivers aged over 85 are being demonised and should not have to do a driving test each year because research showed they were the least likely to cause a crash. Research undertaken by the Monash University Accident Research Centre showed that older drivers constitute approximately 13 per cent of fatal crashes. By comparison, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau younger drivers aged between 17 and 24 years account for around 29 per cent of fatal crashes. The centre further stated that studies in Australia and overseas have repeatedly shown that age-based mandatory testing is ineffective in recognising at-risk drivers. It is, therefore, difficult to understand the Government's rationale in discriminating against one particular group of drivers.
The Monash University study also revealed that most older drivers have a self-regulatory system in place. People know when to stop driving, in the same way that they know that they can no longer run up stairs or party all night. Older drivers do not do burnouts, tailgate or drag race at traffic lights. Older drivers have many years of experience on the road and have a strong sense of responsibility for road safety. It is not the responsibility of the Roads and Traffic Authority to arbitrarily categorise all people as disabled, untrustworthy or incapable of handling a motor vehicle once they reach a certain age. If the Government has evidence that older drivers are a menace on the roads it is obliged to present it. If the Government has evidence that somehow the road rules mysteriously change after 10 kilometres it should present it. The State Government must also explain how it will improve public transport options and how it will provide an increased range of home services for people who will ultimately end up isolated in their own homes. The Queen is over 80 yet, significantly, she continues to drive.
CENTRAL MANGROVE PUBLIC SCHOOL FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [6.03 p.m.]: On Sunday 23 September 2007 I had the great pleasure of attending the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of Central Mangrove Public School. The weather was perfect and the day went off without a hitch. It was wonderful to see the young students of this delightful school running the program for the celebrations, which began with the welcome and acknowledgement of country by Laura Pinto. As I said on Sunday, Australia's future is in very good hands when we have such keen and talented youngsters as those at Central Mangrove. The two swagmen who were the Masters of Ceremonies for the day, Craig Clarke and Isaac Vassilopoulos, did a brilliant job introducing the distinguished guests and providing appropriate commentary on what it would have been like at Central Mangrove all those years ago. Three former students—Marilyn, Cheryl and William Gardner—rendered a delightful and humorous recount of their time at Central Mangrove. School captain Jake Carraro and vice captain Paige Foubister did an excellent job in presenting their segments of the fiftieth birthday bash play "To Plan for the Future".
Central Mangrove Public School is situated in an idyllic setting on Wisemans Ferry Road on land originally donated by local residents. After determined and effective lobbying of the then Minister for Education, the Hon. R. J. Heffron, who later went on to become Premier of this great State, Central Mangrove Public School opened on 10 September 1957 with 49 pupils. Mr Harold Jackson, the then member for Gosford, was the State parliamentary representative at the time. The first principal of the school was Mr G. Arden who remained in that position until June 1962, followed by Mr William Laird from June 1962 to April 1974, Mr Ian Germon from April 1974 to May 1975, Mr Ian Roughley from May 1975 to February 1978, Mr A. Harvey from February 1978 to December 1978, Mr George Brewster from January 1979 to 1989, Mr Graeme Mulley from 1989 to 2004 and the first female principal Mrs Lorene Alexander from 2004 to the present. Today the school has 104 students.
To mark the school's fiftieth anniversary a beautifully illustrated book has been produced. The book is dedicated to the hardworking staff, all the children and their parents, past and present. It is also in memory of Irene Calvert, who was a diligent senior school assistant from 1995 to 2005. Special thanks go to Melissa MacKay, a teacher at the school who compiled all the information gathered from the community to make the book possible. There are many amusing and interesting stories in the book told by long-established families in this predominantly farming area. Contributions to the book include those from the West, Morris, Sidiropoulos, Clarke, Goddard, Small, Andrews, Redman, Metzke, Hannema, Paull, Ramm, Atkins, Houston and Smith families. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2401
Many of the students have done well. For instance, Rebecca Houston, who completed her schooling at Central Mangrove in 1982, went on to pursue a career in law and was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court in 1994. Dr Esther Sidiropoulos, now Tantsis, the youngest child of George and Georgia Sidiropoulos, attended Central Mangrove from 1983 to 1989. Esther now has several letters after her name and is currently working in the emergency department at Gosford Hospital. Esther intends to further her medical knowledge in the area of neurology. Mr Mulley, a former principal who was in attendance on Sunday, also made a lovely contribution to the book. For many years Central Mangrove has implemented a school parliament. This has been an invaluable exercise for the students, giving them a good insight into how our democratic governments work.
Central Mangrove Public School has come a long way since its humble beginnings in 1957. The facilities and beautiful playgrounds are among the best found anywhere. That is due, to a large extent, to successive hardworking parents and citizens associations, combined with the incredible community spirit that exists in the mountains district. It is, therefore, fitting that on Sunday two long-serving members of the parents and citizens association, Jenny Clarke and Sue Atkins, planted a treasured and rare Wollemi pine, which the school recently won in a heavily contested competition. The school's oldest student, Marilyn Press, nee Gardner, and youngest student, Daniella Nahem, blew out the candles on the anniversary cake. Well done to all the students who participated in the anniversary celebrations, congratulations to the school principal, Mrs Lorene Alexander, and the teachers, staff, students, parents and citizens on the school's golden jubilee. I wish Central Mangrove Public School all the best for the future.
CHAFFEY DAM UPGRADE
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.08 p.m.]: Part of the title of one of Slim Dusty's most famous songs is "When the Rain Tumbles Down". Sixty-one years after Slim immortalised those words to become part of our folklore, we may have to change our future perspective to "if the rain tumbles down". H2O is one of the few molecular formulas most of us remember from our school days, but our perspective on water has changed over the last 61 years. Australia is the world's driest continent and recent forecasts indicate that we are far from out of the worst drought in 100 years. Everyone, barring our rural residents who manage this precious resource out of necessity, has taken our water for granted. Suddenly water is a tradeable commodity that farmers, facing financial ruin after years of drought, are selling to financial institutions and traders. Some are selling their long-term futures for short-term survival. More than $1 billion will be spent in Sydney to build a desalination plant that will safeguard its future water requirements, while reports show that it will cost up to $50 million a year to operate, even if not a drop of water is produced.
Where does this all lead me? I return to the augmentation of Chaffey Dam, which is vital to ensure water security for Peel Valley irrigators, to supply the resources needed to allow for further business expansion and also to provide water security for Tamworth residents. Today in question time I asked the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water what New South Wales needs to do to access the Federal Government's promised $6.6 million to upgrade Chaffey Dam. While the Minister reconfirmed the State Government's commitment to the project, I am still unsure what the next step needs to be.
I have been very pleased by the responsible attitude taken to water conservation by the people of our region. After enduring level 5 water restrictions people have reacted conservatively to the easing of restrictions following recent rains. Residents respect our water resources. Initially the Peel River provided water, then wells were added, and in 1898 Moore Creek Dam was opened to supply Tamworth. By the mid-1950s additional infrastructure was required and Dungowan Dam opened in 1957. Continued growth saw the vision of our city forefathers combine with the State Government to build Chaffey Dam in 1979. Nearly 30 years on and an ongoing drought plus further sustained growth have seen Chaffey Dam unable to meet the needs of irrigators, residential consumers and businesses. To secure the region's future we must proceed urgently with augmentation. Since 1990 plans for the upgrade and enlargement of this dam have been public property. I have copies of minutes from a public meeting in 1990 in which State Water's Barwon regional manager stated:
The State Government has provided funds for the preparation of the EIS and preliminary design plans. The EIS is scheduled to be put on public display in mid January 1991 and environmental clearance is scheduled to be obtained in June 1991.
He went on to say:
If the above timetable is achieved construction could commence in mid 1992 provided that the Government has given approval to proceed, and be completed in early 1995.
At the time the price tag was $18 million; today it is $29 million. We are now 17 years down the track and not a sod has been turned. Until recently the Federal Government's refusal to commit funds to the plan as proposed by 2402 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
the Chaffey Dam Reference Panel appeared to be the major sticking point. Local residents had welcomed the New South Wales Government's commitment of $14.5 million for the safety enhancement, plus $4.697 million for the capacity enhancement. Local irrigators and Tamworth Regional Council had committed their share of funding to the project.
With an election in sight, the Federal Government recently committed $6.7 million to bring the funding package together, and its announcement appeared to indicate that the project was a fait accompli. But, unfortunately, nothing is ever as it seems. Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile's announcement has conflicted with statements attributed to Federal water resources Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Comments from Mr Turnbull's office that there are still hurdles to clear have cast doubt over the commitment. Mr Turnbull is also quoted as saying it was:
… now contingent on the NSW Government submitting an appropriate business plan … that is consistent with the principles of the National Water Initiative and the objectives of the National Plan for Water Security.
From the planning of the early 1990s through to the work of the Chaffey Dam Reference Panel, the information required to achieve the upgrade and enhancement has been on the public record. Environmental outcomes, economic outcomes, impacts on Aboriginal archaeology, fauna, fisheries, flora, foreshore erosion, water quality and many other factors have all been carefully investigated and the results have been included in the feasibility process that determined whether the project should proceed.
On behalf of the people of Tamworth and the Peel Valley I ask that the State Government explain to Minister Turnbull that the Chaffey Dam Reference Panel has already submitted a business plan for this project. To my knowledge his office has at least six copies of the plan. Mark Vaile used the panel's business plan to announce that the Federal Government would provide its identified share of funds needed to complete the project. It is time to start the construction process, not to continue playing political games with the most important infrastructure project needed to secure the future for Tamworth residents, businesses and the Peel Valley irrigators.
Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie—Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water Utilities) [6.13 p.m.]: I commend the member for Tamworth for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the people of his electorate and for his efforts to secure their water supply. I will gently correct some of the record regarding the desalination plant. The $50 million figure the member for Tamworth cited is for maximum capacity for the desalination plant. The most likely scenario is that it will not run at maximum capacity. If it were running at baseload it would cost in the order of $9 million a year and not the $50 million the member cited. For the average family the cost is around $4 a year up to a maximum of $24 a year. Critically, that provides us with an additional 14 per cent of water and, in combination with the 11 per cent out of the recycling schemes, that is a combined total of 25 per cent extra water for Sydney into the future, protecting us not against this drought but against droughts in years to come. It underpins a $300 billion economy, and without that underpinning that economy is at risk.
YOUTH ELECTORAL ENROLMENT
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.14 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House an important matter. With a Federal election looming it is very appropriate to raise this issue. In my capacity as shadow Minister for Youth Affairs one thing has become clear and that is that more and more youth today are not engaged with the political process. His Excellency the Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, in an address on Australia Day 2005 said:
Whether it be because of the way politics is conceptualised and portrayed in society, the media or at school, many of today's young people appear to consider politics unappealing and therefore tend not to want to be associated with it.
Young people's apathy is possibly derived from a belief that the world of politics bears little or no effect on their lives. Politics, according to this theory, is about budgets, interest rates and housing prices, and these are issues that will only have an impact on young people in the future. When they become aware, however, of the significance of politics on their daily lives, it was evident that young people were more likely to take an interest.
This is a concern and the statistics show that more and more young people are taking longer and longer to enrol on the electoral roll. There is a young group in Manly and two principals, James Griffin and Tom Griffin, who have done an outstanding job with this initiative. They helped me in my recent campaign, but on a non-political basis. They have brought a group of people into a national network in a very short time with an initiative called iVote Australia. The website for iVote Australia is not about supporting or endorsing any political party. The 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2403
group has not received any government funding or political party funding and members of the group have used their own bank savings to fund the website. On the website it states:
The website is focused on attracting young people to the democratic process by fusing different aspects of a young person's life with politics. For example, we use sporting stars (Lote Tiqiri) and TV/Radio (Tony Squires/Mikey Robbins) personalities to record short videos encouraging young people to enrol to vote and understand how the election affects them.
Their view is very strong: that young people are not apathetic; they care about issues such as climate change, the economy, the war in Iraq, housing and so on. However, expressing their concern through voting is sometimes difficult because they do not possess the political information or knowledge. I call on the House and the community of New South Wales to encourage our youth to vote because I believe it is very important that people express their views, understand the issues and vote accordingly. Clearly, the Federal election is going to be a very important election. I call on all the youth of today to participate and use this website, ivoteaustralia.com.au, to inform their vote. I commend James Griffin and Tom Griffin for their outstanding work and the other guys involved in that initiative.
It would be remiss of me not to wish the mighty Manly Warringah Sea Eagles all the best in the event on Sunday. It is not often a team makes a grand final and clearly the aspirations of the community rests with the Sea Eagles as they face this challenge. We look forward to members wearing the colours of maroon and white in the House tomorrow as the Sea Eagles take on not only the hopes and dreams of the peninsula and the northern beaches but indeed the entire State. We commend and congratulate the grand final team line-up that was announced yesterday.
The team is led by Sea Eagles coach Des Hassler, who was an outstanding footballer, and the players are: Brett Stewart, Michael Robertson, Steve Bell, Steve Matai, Chris Hicks, Jamie Lyon, Matt Orford, Jason King, Michael Monaghan, Brent Kite, Anthony Watmough, Glenn Stewart, Luke Williamson, and on the interchange Travis Burns, Glenn Hall, Mark Bryant, Steve Menzies, Matt Ballin, Jack Afamasaga and Adam Cuthbertson. These gentlemen are carrying the hopes and dreams of many of the youth of today with them, and we wish them well. I will pass on from this House, and implore the House to pass on, our congratulations and best wishes to the Sea Eagles and also to the group that put together iVote Australia before it is too late to register a vote.
COUNTRY ENERGY PRIVATISATION
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [6.19 p.m.]: As a Sharks supporter hanging out for our first premiership it pains me to say so, but I also wish the Sea Eagles the best for the weekend.
I refer members to announcements following the release of the report of the Owen Inquiry into Electricity Supply in New South Wales and particularly the comments made by the Premier about energy privatisation in New South Wales and the retail sector, which has a direct effect on the community of Port Macquarie. A substantial number of Port Macquarie residents are employed by Country Energy and it is home to one of three head offices—the others being at Queanbeyan and Bathurst. It may surprise members to learn that Country Energy has a workforce of 800 people based in Port Macquarie. It is probably the main employer in the area, so any changes to its operations send ripples through the community. As a result, privatisation of the electricity retail sector is of great concern to many of my constituents. I was heartened by the Premier's statement after the report was released that he would look for job guarantees. I hope that they are more than words and that they will be followed by actions. Country Energy call centres in Port Macquarie play a substantial role in employment and economic activity in our region.
If the Premier's words turn into actions I will also be pleased to see guarantees on pricing fulfilled. The mid North Coast community is largely elderly and not overly affluent, so domestic electricity pricing means something. Any variations are picked up and mean a lot to the local residents. It is open to argument whether the national electricity market has been performing well. A Port Macquarie resort was recently informed of an extraordinary price rise of 140 per cent when it was negotiating a new contract. It was paying $100,000 for a five-year contract and that was increased to $240,000. The resort operators tried to obtain contracts from 17 retailers but only one was interested. If that is a sign of the future for the national electricity market and if that is the way domestic pricing is organised then we are facing an absolute disaster. I was heartened by the Premier's guarantees about no more increases in domestic prices and no deregulation of the market in the short term. I hope he is rock solid on that and that we can protect as much as possible against any price rises, particularly in the domestic market. 2404 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
The mid North Coast also has significant peak-load issues. It has been proposed that a peak-load generator be established at Herons Creek. At this stage any such generator would have to be diesel powered, but a diesel-powered peak-load generator is not the smartest option given climate change. Gas is the alternative option and the private sector proposal includes the ability to flick to gas power. However, we must source gas on the mid North Coast. Given local population growth, I hope that the business community can put together a substantial proposal for the use of gas to make it worthwhile for the private sector and the Government to consider piping gas through our region so that we can deal sensibly with issues such as the peak loads we experience on hot summer days.
Private members' statements noted.
CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL 2007
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
[Assistant-Speaker (Ms Alison Megarrity) left the chair at 6.25 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
CHRISTIAN ISRAELITE CHURCH PROPERTY TRUST BILL 2007
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry Collier, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.
Agreement in Principle
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.31 p.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The purpose of the Christian Israelite Church Property Trust Bill is to constitute a statutory corporation to hold property on behalf of the Christian Israelite Church, and to vest in the statutory corporation any property that is currently held in trust for the benefit of the church. The purpose of the bill is also to specify the functions and powers of that statutory corporation. It has been longstanding government policy to assist churches in organising their financial and property affairs by sponsoring legislation to establish property trusts for their holdings. The legislation creates an ongoing structure to support their religious and charitable activities.
The statutory corporation created by the bill replaces an antiquated trust structure in which title deeds must be redrafted every time a trustee dies or moves on. The Christian Israelite Church was founded in England in 1822 by John Wroe. The church had its headquarters in Gravesend and Ashton-Under-Lyne, in Lancashire, but John Wroe travelled widely and established branches throughout England, Scotland, Ireland, the United States and Australia. There are still individual members in England and the United States, but the church is now strongest in Australia, where it has about 1,000 adult parishioners.
The church was established in Australia in the 1840s and is one of the oldest in this country. In Sydney, the church on Campbell Street in Surry Hills was built in 1853, on one of the original blocks of land sold in that area. The building is still used by the church today. The largest congregation of the Christian Israelite Church worldwide is currently in New South Wales, in Singleton. The other main congregations are in Sydney, Terrigal and Melbourne. The church's activities include the running of a Sunday school, concerts, and children's camps. Singleton's congregation has a church brass band and choir, which puts on frequent performances in the area, including Christmas performances at local nursing homes. The church produces a range of publications, as well as broadcasting services over the radio and the Internet.
The bill is similar in content to other church property trust legislation passed by Australian parliaments. For the benefit of honourable members I will outline the major provisions of the bill. Clause 4 provides for the establishment of the property trust as a statutory corporation. The trust is to have a board of trustees comprising all the most senior trustees of the church, called the international trustees. Clause 7 specifies the functions of the trust. They include buying, holding and selling church property, acquiring property by gift, device or bequest, and borrowing money for church purposes.
The bill includes the usual provisions to enable the trust to make relevant by-laws, such as the procedures by which the board of trustees will conduct the business of the trust, and delegate functions. Clause 12 enables the trust to make advances from trust funds. This will allow the trust to provide for the establishment 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2405
of new congregations, if necessary. The bill also enables the trust to make arrangements with a church of another denomination concerning the use of trust property, an important feature given the increasing cooperation among denominations these days, particularly in charitable and community work. The trust will also be able to act as the executor or administrator of an estate in which the church has a beneficial interest, and to accept appointment as a trustee of property held for the church's benefit. At present, six properties are held by four international trustees for the benefit of the church. These are all in New South Wales.
The bill proposes to vest property currently held in trust for the church in the new property trust corporation. This vesting will take effect from the date of commencement of the Act, without the need for a separate conveyance of each of the individual parcels. Clause 18 provides that in future any property given to or otherwise receivable by the church will vest in the statutory trust. The bill has been worded to make it clear that the vesting of property in the trust under this legislation should apply, as far as possible, to property situated outside New South Wales that is held for the benefit of the church. This will ensure that if a person in Victoria dies and leaves his or her assets to the church, the assets will go to the trust in the same way as they would if the person had been in New South Wales. The bill will have a positive impact on the operations of the church and its capacity to manage its financial and property affairs. This will be of specific benefit to the Christian Israelite community and their families. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [7.39 p.m.]: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Miranda, for introducing this bill. In leading for the Opposition on this bill I indicate that we have much pleasure in supporting it. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Christian Israelite Church is a prominent part of the Singleton community. Singleton has been my hometown for more than 30 years. Some of the first people I met when I moved to Singleton in 1976 were members of the Christian Israelite community, some of who are seated in the gallery tonight. I acknowledge the presence of Paul Gray, Reginald Gray, Rosemaree Knight, Keron Fellowes, Rodney Gray, Anthony Gray and Sarah Gray—the Grays appear to have a monopoly in the Christian Israelite Church. In particular I acknowledge Paul Gray and Rosemaree Knight, who are trustees of the Christian Israelite Church. Indeed, Paul Gray is head of the international trustees of the church.
I have had many business and social dealings with various members of the families associated with the church. I wish to place on record what fine people the members of the Christian Israelite Church are, how highly I personally regard them and how highly they are regarded in the Singleton community. They have been very long-term members of their communities—Singleton and elsewhere. I am not having a guess when I say that the crime rate in these communities is zero. And why am I not surprised at that! The teachings of the church and the community's communal, family and church bonds are of the highest order and integrity. They have the strongest moral and Christian foundation imaginable.
The Christian Israelite Church is an extremely old church. One of the first Christian churches built in Australia was built by the Christian Israelites at Darlinghurst. Of course, there are now others. The member for Terrigal, who wanted to speak tonight but was not able to be here, asked me to inform the House that the members of the Christian Israelite Church in his electorate are highly respected and valuable members of their community.
I had some involvement in the development of this bill. I acknowledge and thank the Attorney General's Department for its role in the introduction of the bill. I thank also the present Attorney General, John Hatzistergos, and the former Attorney, Bob Debus, for the role they played in its development. The bill has finally made its way to the Legislative Assembly. In due course it will be forwarded to the other place for concurrence and will ultimately receive assent and be gazetted. The bill will bring the church into the modern corporatised world that many other churches enjoy, giving it a more secure statutory foundation—particularly in the present modern, complex legal world—in future commercial and property-based dealings. I do not mean to be disrespectful when I say that to date, dealings by this very old-fashioned church in the new, aggressive world of corporate and statutory governance have been just that—old fashioned. The existence of an Act of Parliament to give statutory foundation to the dealings of the church will modernise its administration and its governance now and forever.
I have great respect for the church and its community—as I say, I have known them a long time now. I pause ever so briefly to reflect on one of my dear friends, the late Harley Gray, who would be proud that the legislation has finally come through. I have a sense of considerable pride that a community in my electorate, within my hometown, will benefit from legislation that, through fortuitous circumstances, I am able to speak to and support. I do so with a great deal of pleasure. I commend the bill to the House. 2406 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Upper Hunter for his valuable contribution to this bill and acknowledge his support for the Christian Israelite Church. It is clear that he takes an active interest in the church, for which he has been a strong advocate in getting the bill before the Parliament. I was pleased that he acknowledged, as I do, the work of the present Attorney General, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, and the former Attorney General, the Hon. Bob Debus, in the development of the bill. Clearly this is a day of joy for the church. The Government acknowledges the presence in the gallery of church elders Paul Gray, Reginald Gray, Rosemaree Knight, Keron Fellowes, Rodney Gray, Anthony Gray and Sarah Gray. They are most welcome. The member for Upper Hunter has referred to the strong communal ties with the church and its high moral and Christian foundations. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT (SPECIAL EVENTS HOTEL TRADING) BILL 2007
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.
Consideration in Detail
Consideration of the Legislative Council amendments.
Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 26 September
No. 1 Pages 4 and 5, Schedule 1, line 5 on page 4 to line 4 on page 5. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 2 Long title. Omit "and to provide for hotel trading hours to be extended when other special events are held".
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.49 p.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council amendments be agreed to.
Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [7.50 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to indicate to the House that unfortunately earlier in the day the Government proceeded to rush this bill through with a determined attitude and a closed ear about one aspect of the bill. During the debate this morning I said that the legislation would provide the Minister, in a sudden, summary way, and without warning or consultation, with extraordinary blanket powers to declare a special event. With proper time and consultation, the Opposition may well consider these powers. That aspect of the amending legislation, shielded by the goodwill of the Rugby World Cup, the telecast of those events and the associated extended trading hours, is unfair to both the community generally and the Parliament because the amendments have not been given proper consideration and debate.
Indeed, I am disappointed because when I was perfunctorily briefed by the Minister and his chief of staff—I appreciated the telephone call from the Minister and the visit from the chief of staff—neither of them mentioned this vital aspect of the bill. At the time I was rather surprised and annoyed, notwithstanding the good relations I have with the Minister's staff, the Minister and, indeed, the department. Quite a lot has transpired throughout the day and there has been quite a lot of discussion. It became apparent to the Government that trying to ram the bill through not only met with difficulty in this House but met with considerable difficulty in the other place. The Government faced defeat, and it withdrew the bill. Some negotiations have taken place subsequently, and this bill now states what it is meant to state and does what it is meant to do—that is, provide solely for extended trading hours in hotels during the telecast of the quarterfinals, the semifinals and the final of the Rugby World Cup tournament.
That is what the real intent of the bill should have been. That is the basis for the urgency that was required in this House. The other matter was one of policy. That other matter should have been, and 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2407
undoubtedly will be, incorporated in the omnibus rewrite of the liquor bill. The introduction of that legislation into Parliament stalled more than a year ago but the Government has promised, at least publicly, finally to introduce the bill perhaps in the next month. This is the proper place and the proper forum. That is the proper way to deal with such a significant policy, not in the way the Government tried to use its numbers to bluff members in this House and in the other place and to bulldoze the legislation through the Parliament. The Government hoped that the strength of the argument that the Rugby World Cup was involved would get it over its troubles and get the policy through.
As I said, the policy deserves due consideration, and we will give it that, but we will not be bulldozed into submission, as the Government tried to do today. I believe the Government has learnt one good lesson today. One lesson is that the Minister responsible for the legislation should be close at hand—indeed, he should be in the chair—to deal with aspects that might emerge during debate, to provide leadership and to make decisions about the fate of the bill. But he was not available. That is why the Government has ended up in this ignominious position—and it deserves to be in that position. It is of its own making by its own hand, and it should be embarrassed. The Government is embarrassed that the bill has had to come back to this House with appropriate amendments that produce the appropriate bill. Those amendments should have been made in the first place. I now have pleasure in supporting this bill.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.55 p.m.]: In response to the final point made by the member for Upper Hunter, sadly—
Mr Thomas George: What do you mean "sadly"?
Mr BARRY COLLIER: The member for Lismore should at least do me the courtesy of listening.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I call the member for Lismore to order.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: In response to the final point made by the member for Upper Hunter, sadly and unfortunately the Minister was called to a funeral this morning.
Mr George Souris: I understand that.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: I just raise that point—
Mr George Souris: You should have delayed the legislation until he got back.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council amendments agreed to.
STANDARD TIME AMENDMENT (DAYLIGHT SAVING) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [7.56 p.m.]: I lead for the Liberal Party on the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill 2007. I indicate that the bill will not be opposed by Liberal Party members. Daylight saving is a vexed issue. It is an issue whether one lives in the south, the north, the east or the west of the State. It has a different impact on individuals, communities and businesses and the way they go about their lives. But what is important is the history. This issue was first raised at a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG]—that is, the Premiers of all the States, the Chief Ministers of the two Territories and the Prime Minister—in July 2006, when the proposal was put forward to try to better synchronise the commencement and finalisation of daylight saving in Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Tasmania. At that July 2006 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments it was decided to bring proposals forward at the next meeting to see whether there could be better synchronisation.
The desire for synchronisation and clearer start and finish times is about trying to provide greater certainty to business and people. I refer to business in the sense of uniformity of business activities conducted 2408 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
across State lines. That is consistent with the focus of most governments in trying to reduce the regulatory burdens on business. It seeks to minimise confusion for an important part of the Australian economy, tourism, with tourists travelling between the south-eastern States. Under the new arrangements that came out of the July 2007 Council of Australian Governments meeting, the south-eastern States and the Australian Capital Territory will start daylight saving time on the first Sunday in October and end it on the first Sunday in April. Currently, daylight saving starts on the last Sunday in October and ends on the last Sunday in March.
My Liberal colleagues and I had a look at this legislation when it was introduced. We have used the winter recess to consult our communities on the issue. On the basis of those consultations, and recognising that in this legislation, as with other legislation, balances have to be made, we believe that supporting greater uniformity and synchronisation is in the public interest. This bill, like the 2005 legislation, provides for any future changes to daylight saving to be made by regulation. As I pointed out in relation to the 2005 legislation, regulations that might be made under this legislation could have been made under the existing legislation and are reviewable by Parliament, involve scrutiny and accountability, and can be disallowed by either House of the Parliament.
Given that the Government does not have a majority in the upper House and is unlikely, whoever is in office, to have a majority in the upper House, that is a useful check. It is interesting that in the Australian Capital Territory legislation for daylight saving may be fixed by a declaration simply by the relevant Minister; in Victoria it is fixed by the Governor-in-Council. In this State it is fixed by regulation or in this instance by legislation, which means that it is reviewable by Parliament and that means that this process of Parliament and the way it is meant to operate and represent the people of this State works. On behalf of the Liberal Party I indicate that we will not oppose the legislation. I acknowledge that a number of my colleagues will speak to raise issues in their electorates about this matter.
Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [8.00 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill and place on record that most of the residents that I have spoken to in the Smithfield electorate strongly support the extension of daylight saving. The people of the Smithfield electorate are very hardworking and family oriented. Many of them have to travel long distances to work every day and they get home late in the evening, often when it is dark.
This bill will allow the people of New South Wales to spend more time doing the things they love, as many more people will be getting home in daylight. There are a number of things that we as a community would prefer to do during the week to free up our precious weekends. In my opinion it is all about having choices. Some people like to work in their gardens, as the member for Monaro mentioned. Others would benefit from the extra daylight, as this could be an opportunity to exercise by riding bikes, going for a walk or going for a jog.
The Smithfield electorate is very fortunate to have many cycleways, open space and playing fields and all those areas are very popular and well used by the community. The bill will mean that more people in New South Wales will take up exercising, as many are reluctant to exercise at night and in the dark. The extra daylight will also give parents more opportunity to spend quality time outdoors with their children. Spending quality time with our children is priceless and does not happen often enough. The more time our kids spend outside, the less time they spend watching television and playing video games. Childhood obesity is one of the greatest challenges that we face. In a small and important way this bill will give kids a chance to be more active.
This bill also will give us the opportunity to utilise more of the day by doing the things we love. Having more daylight in the evening will automatically reduce the use of electricity in New South Wales. Many sporting clubs and groups hold their training sessions in the evening, so a significant amount of power will be saved by not having to turn the lights on for an extended period. The use of power in homes will also be reduced, as people will not need to turn on their lights for that extra period. The bill will bring New South Wales in line with the other States and Territories.
This is a sensible bill that will enable the good people of New South Wales to spend more quality time with their family. It will allow the people of New South Wales to enjoy more of the day by doing some of the things we would normally do on a weekend. It will give the people of New South Wales more opportunity to exercise. It will bring New South Wales in line with the other States and Territories and it will have a positive impact through a reduction in the use of electricity. These are all very good reasons to support the bill. I commend the Iemma Government for its initiative and I have no hesitation in supporting the bill.
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [8.03 p.m.]: I am pleased to lead for The Nationals on the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill, which changes the Standard Time Act 1987 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2409
to extend the period of daylight saving each year. I understand that the legislation has followed a period of discussion and consultation with other jurisdictions, namely, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, in which an agreement was reached on harmonising and extending daylight-saving arrangements from April next year.
Sadly, that consultation has not extended to the people of New South Wales, especially country New South Wales. It seems that Tasmania has led the way in relation to the extension of daylight saving, which is understandable, given that it is further south and that during summer, and into spring and autumn, the days are longer. Of course it is in Tasmania's interest. It seems that the days have passed when New South Wales was the State that led the agenda nationally. Now we have Tasmania leading the agenda, certainly in relation to daylight saving.
I saw the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, who is visiting the New South Wales Parliament. He would be pleased that discussions had taken place between the States because that is in the interests of the nation but with respect to daylight saving we will never have a consistent agreement across the jurisdictions. Queensland does not want it, yet New South Wales is following Tasmania's lead to extend daylight saving.
This bill, if passed, means that daylight saving will be extended another four weeks, from the first Sunday in October to the first Sunday in April. For 2008-09 daylight saving will last a full six months. It will mean that the period of daylight saving will be extended by three weeks in spring, that is, at the beginning of daylight saving, and extended one week in autumn at the end. That might not seem a lot to city people but it is the extension of daylight saving that is the problem. It is at the margins that the problem exists. Country people will tolerate daylight saving as it is, but when one asks them to consider longer periods of daylight saving, getting into the margins in the spring and the autumn, problems arise in the daily lives of country families.
In particular, this extension will cause angst for families in western New South Wales. The Nationals repeatedly remind the Government that there is more to New South Wales than Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. There is the North Coast, South Coast and west of the divide. I wish the Premier would travel more often outside the Sydney Basin and talk to people in those western communities, which are facing all sorts of difficulties at the moment, not the least of which is the drought. The Deputy Prime Minister, along with the Prime Minister, announced a magnificent drought support package of an additional $714 million for farmers in western communities, on top of the $3.5 billion.
Mr Barry Collier: There must be an election coming up, is there?
Mr ANDREW STONER: No, the Deputy Prime Minister is here and I want to give him credit because your mob have failed to provide anything additional, even when it extends to the waiving of fixed water charges, which I asked the Premier again to reconsider. However, I digress and shall now return to the leave of the bill. The member for Miranda may not be aware as he comes from a nice area, the shire—
Mr Barry Collier: Don't knock the shire.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I am not knocking the shire; it is a lovely place, but country New South Wales is lovely as well and many children live quite a long distance away from their local school, many on properties. It often takes students 1½ hours on the bus to get to school. This extension of daylight saving into the spring and autumn periods will result in children waiting on the side of the road for school buses in the dark. I can see that the doubting Thomases on the Government benches do not believe me. A child in the Cobar district catching a school bus at 7.00 a.m. in early April, which is when this Government is proposing to extend daylight saving, would be waiting at the side of the road in the dark because the sun does not rise until 7.30 a.m. There has been no consultation. We have a road safety issue and a child safety issue. The Government, without any consultation with country people, is forcing little children to wait for their school buses in the dark.
In early October the sun does not rise in Balranald until 7.00 a.m. Children in the Balranald district who are going to school in October will be on the side of the road or travelling on the bus before daylight has arrived. I know that this issue is out of sight and out of mind for this Sydney-centric Government. Earlier today the member for Monaro waxed lyrical, held court as he does, and tried to bag The Nationals over this issue. Only last week The Nationals were out in force at the Henty field days where a petition was being circulated. That petition, which was in great demand, rejected this extension of daylight saving.
If the member for Monaro bothered to get out of Queanbeyan and travel into some of the smaller country communities he would know that there is a resentment that this Government simply wants to fall into 2410 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
line with Tasmania, ignore the impact on country people and introduce this extension of daylight saving, which will make life difficult for many people. Perhaps that is why only two so-called Country Labor members are left in the Legislative Assembly. They simply fall into line with the Sydney-centric Labor Government that we have in this State. They are not listening to country communities and they are not connecting with their people. I think Blackie, the former member for Murray-Darling, and napping Neville, the former member for Tweed, have gone from this place because they just were not listening. They simply towed the line of their Sydney Labor masters.
It is clear that when introducing this legislation to extend daylight saving—I said that country people tolerated daylight saving but that they were unhappy about its extension for the reasons I outlined—Premier Morris Iemma did not bother to consult, let alone take into account the impact of this decision. That is one of the reasons why The Nationals have up for debate again tomorrow a private member's bill relating to rural community impact statements. In 1995 Bob Carr, as the then Premier, promised that that would happen and that the impacts on rural communities would be considered in relation to any legislation or significant Cabinet decision. That is not happening, which is further proof of the Sydney-centric attitude of this Government.
As I said earlier, it is a sad state of affairs when the New South Wales Premier and Government identify more clearly with Tasmanians than with the families of western New South Wales. Country people are sick and tired of being forgotten by the Government of this State. On this rare occasion The Nationals differ from their Liberal colleagues, but we are a separate party. I stress that we do not oppose daylight saving per se, but we oppose the extension of daylight saving. We also oppose the power that this bill will confer on a Sydney-centric Labor Government to further extend daylight saving on a whim. The Nationals proudly support country people exclusively; we do not support city people. If we did we might have a different position. In conclusion, The Nationals oppose this bill.
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [8.14 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to make a contribution to debate on the Standard Time Amendment Daylight Saving Bill 2007. If ever a bill were introduced into Parliament that showed the concentration of the Labor Government on the Sydney and coastal region immediately north and south, this bill would be it. Nowhere in the agreement in principle speech did the member for Miranda mention any other area of New South Wales. As the Leader of The Nationals clearly stated, there was no consultation and the Government had no intention of taking into account the views of country people. In fact, the whole emphasis basically has been on leisure and tourism opportunities. While those are great, and I appreciate that they benefit all areas of the State, the emphasis is encapsulated in a statement made by the member for Kiama in the following terms:
Daylight saving is synonymous with long summer nights, the chance to go to the park after school, to have a swim after work, or to take a long walk in the evening with friends or the family dog.
As true as that might be, it is playing around the edges. That is at the periphery of what this bill is all about. This bill is based on an agreement that was reached on 14 July 2006 by the Coalition of Australian Governments when New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory agreed to consider synchronising the start and end dates for daylight saving time. To that extent the bill will provide for the commencement of daylight saving each year on the first Sunday in October and for its ending on the first Sunday in April the following year, a total of an additional four-week period. For the year 2007 the daylight saving period will begin on the last Sunday in October, that is, 28 October.
As the Leader of The Nationals indicated, people in western and central New South Wales have great concerns about this extension of daylight saving. Many people in those areas have established that putting children on school buses at that earlier time will create difficulties, safety issues and family issues. Equally, country people will encounter problems as they will have to get up earlier. At the Henty field days Allan Lieschke and David and Neva Muller approached me and told me what this would mean for people in central and western parts of New South Wales. In their view country people, in particular those in the areas I mentioned, had received no consideration. They pointed out the difficulties for children travelling on school buses. David Muller wrote to me and requested that I register his family's opposition to the proposed extension of daylight saving. He said:
In his submission to Parliament, Mr. Barry Collier mentions the suggested benefits of this increased Daylight Saving which are mainly recreational and tourism.
Mr Muller went on to say:
There is no mention of the inconvenience and hardships caused to the many rural workers, parents with young families, schoolchildren and many others living in mid and western areas of our huge State where sunrise is considerably later than in the eastern coastal area. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2411
He went on to state:
In October and March many rural workers, schoolchildren and others ... need to get up in the dark to get to work and to school, etc. on time.
Since Daylight Saving was introduced the strain of having to change our life cycle twice a year is bad enough but to have to get up in the dark in those extra weeks is an unnecessary hardship.
Basically, those people recognise that daylight saving exists and, as the leader of The Nationals indicated, they were concerned about its extension. As someone who has formerly lived on the South Coast and in the Illawarra region I well recall a period in the early 1980s when daylight saving was extended for another reason at the behest of the then Labor Government—because New South Wales was encountering difficulties in the provision of power. I trust that this extension of daylight saving does not foreshadow similar problems in the future.
On that occasion it was justified as less electricity would have been used by extending daylight saving for an hour in the evening when many people were returning home, turning on the power and doing their cooking. Having worked on the border for many years I recall only too well a period in 1990 when Victoria and New South Wales differed in the extension of daylight saving. On that occasion Victoria extended daylight saving by two weeks for the Moomba festival, which is a massive water skiing and major tourism spectacle in Melbourne. On that occasion the inconvenience caused to the residents of New South Wales was massive. At that time I was the manager of a television station that was based on the border, and the difficult decision to be made was with which State to align one's time. Of course the fact that the television signal at that point emerged from Victoria made it a very easy decision as to which way to go.
The point is that the inconvenience that was caused to all businesses, schoolchildren who might move on either side of the border and to the bus lines was quite extraordinary. There is no room for us on the eastern seaboard to have a different time when it comes to daylight saving. In that respect one has to agree that uniformity between the States is to be encouraged. We should ensure it never differs when States fall into alignment. However, we also need to take into consideration the people who live in central and western New South Wales and at least pay them the courtesy of consulting and explaining the difficulties they will encounter and take those into account, as the Leader for The Nationals has said. In terms of harmonisation, one has to agree that there is no other alternative but to support this legislation.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [8.21 p.m.]: I support the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill, which will extend the daylight saving period in New South Wales by four weeks. Daylight saving will start on the first week of October rather than the last week and end on first week of April rather than the last week of March. An extension of daylight saving makes sense for economic, social, cultural and environmental reasons. In 2005 when Parliament passed a bill to extend daylight saving to coincide with the Melbourne Commonwealth Games I proposed amendments to make the arrangement permanent. The Government opposed my amendments at that time because it said agreement was needed with the other States. I am pleased that the Government says that agreement has been reached between New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory and that this bill finally can be introduced.
People work long hours and would appreciate daylight time at the end of the working day. Daylight saving means increased time for families and friends. In 1976 a referendum of 2.7 million citizens in New South Wales found that 68 per cent wanted daylight saving. Australians have an average working week that is amongst the longest in the developed world. They want to be able to get home in the evening and have a chance to spend time with their family and friends. This is one of the best things about the summer months. Extended daylight saving worked for us during the Olympic Games in 2000. Everyone remembers the buzz and feeling around the city during that time. We were out on the streets enjoying long spring days—the city was alive.
It is worth noting that daylight saving time is not a new idea. Benjamin Franklin conceived the idea while he was an American delegate in Paris in the essay An Economical Project. The logic behind this concept is simple: a better use of daylight hours. Extending daylight saving would bring a range of positive outcomes for families, businesses, community health and wellbeing. It would allow us to enjoy the world's most beautiful playground, Sydney, with our harbour, beaches, parks and playgrounds. An extension of daylight saving would benefit Sydney businesses. Shops, bars and outdoor cafes would experience increased trade. The Chamber of Commerce has previously indicated its support for the extension.
Obesity is a serious medical condition associated with a range of debilitating and life-threatening conditions. From 1985 to 1995 the proportion of Australians who were overweight or obese more than doubled. 2412 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
By 1995 the proportion of overweight or obese youth aged between 2 and 17 years was 21 per cent for boys and 23 per cent for girls. New South Wales Health identifies the shift to a more sedentary lifestyle as the major cause of childhood obesity. The New South Wales Child Health Survey of 2001 found that 40 per cent of children aged 5 to 12 years watched two or more hours of television a day. An early extension of daylight saving would encourage adults and children to stay outdoors and be more active. Families could spend more time with each other, engaged in healthy activities.
There are also convincing environmental reasons for extending daylight saving time. Daylight saving has been introduced into many countries in an attempt to save energy. Daylight saving was introduced in Australia by the Federal Government in 1942, during World War II, to save fuel by cutting down on the use of artificial lighting. Similarly, in the United States of America during the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo, daylight saving was extended for 10 months in 1974 and 8 months in 1975 to save energy. It is estimated that 10,000 barrels of oil were saved each day during that period. I believe the Government should take every opportunity to reduce energy demand and explore measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and demand for electricity. Lighting for homes is directly related to the time that people go to bed and get up. New Zealand power companies have found that power usage decreases 3.5 per cent when daylight saving starts. Peak evening consumption commonly drops about 5 per cent. The United States of America Department of Transportation conducted a study that found that daylight saving reduces the country's electricity usage by a significant amount. Given the urgent need to reduce energy demand, it is critical that the Government explore all energy-saving options.
Another benefit of daylight saving is increased community safety and, equally importantly, a parallel reduction in the fear of crime. Daylight saving gives people time to travel home from work and school in daylight, which is much safer than travelling home in the dark. October and April are wonderful months and there are many practical and social benefits of daylight saving. I commend the bill to the house.
Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [8.25 p.m.]: I speak against this bill. I fully endorse the Leader of the National Party's stance on it. What I am about to say about the Government's daylight saving time changes is not about party politics but about how it affects the lives of my constituents in Tweed. I am 100 percent for Tweed. I understand the benefits of synchronising daylight saving time between New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania but it has no benefits for the people of the Tweed. The people I represent generally do not have a problem with daylight saving as such, but many of them have a major problem with the fact that we are on a different time zone to Queensland for much of the year. This proposal would extend those different time zones by a further month every year. The consequences are not only economic but also social, and will impact on businesses. For example, there are just over 30,000 fully employed people in the Tweed, 13,000 of whom work across the border. There is one hour's difference. Approximately 12 per cent of schoolchildren in Tweed go to school in Queensland.
The member for Monaro may think this is a bit of a joke, but I can tell him that for one-third of the population in Tweed the Government has destroyed the fabric of family life for another month. To me the fabric of family life for the people of Tweed is very important. It may not be important to him but it is to me. From the business side, what does the one-hour difference make to restaurants, hotels and clubs within the Tweed? It basically means they will have to extend the availability of food for an extra hour. For lunch and dinner that is a 33 per cent increase in operational costs when basic income remains exactly the same.
It is fine to talk about lifestyle and people playing in the parks, kicking balls and chasing dogs, but there is a real cost within the electorate of the Tweed both socially and economically. This creates a nightmare in terms of organising transportation for kids and family generally. It is not about saving electricity et cetera. Businesses that have customers and suppliers in both Queensland and New South Wales are forced to open for longer hours during daylight saving. This costs money when they are already struggling to compete with Queensland businesses that pay far less payroll tax, far less workers compensation and so on than business in New South Wales. If they know one fact it is that it is much cheaper—around $20,000 odd cheaper—to build a house in Queensland than it is in New South Wales.
Why? Because of our increased taxes! New South Wales is not open for business. It is forcing business to Queensland. That is a known fact. It also affects quality of life because people spend less time with their families and I think that is a very important part. Not only should the Government act responsibly economically, it should also act responsibly socially. There is a cost to extending daylight saving by a month. However, I am pleased that the new Labor Premier of Queensland has indicated her intention to try to introduce daylight saving some time soon, but not with that extra month. Hello! Finally there is some light there. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2413
Mr Barry Collier: Why not move to Queensland?
Mr GEOFF PROVEST: No, I love New South Wales. My job, for the benefit of the member for Miranda, is to look after my constituency and the Tweed electorate, which I will do until I drop! My plea to the New South Wales Government is to hold these changes back until it has negotiated a better outcome with its Queensland counterparts. I assume that Government members are talking to their Queensland counterparts. Often we have heard in this House about rural impact statements. I must concede that that concept was proposed by a Labor Government. A rural impact statement would have a direct result on this type of legislation because this change would have a cost effect. It is not about recreation time; it is about real social and economic cost. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the extension of daylight saving, particularly because I am 100 per cent Tweed. I wear a blue jersey up there, not a maroon one.
Mr Barry Collier: Tweed?
Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Tweed.
Mr Barry Collier: A Tweed jersey?
Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Tweed 100 per cent. I am a little surprised by the member for Miranda. I am an old shire boy: I grew up in Caringbah. The member for Miranda would find that the beach culture and many of the values held high in his electorate also are held high in my electorate.
Mr Barry Collier: I used to holiday in Coolangatta.
Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Coolangatta is not quite in my electorate.
Mr Barry Collier: And fish in the Tweed.
Mr GEOFF PROVEST: Okay, fish in the Tweed. I reiterate that I strongly oppose the bill.
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [8.32 p.m.]: I congratulate the new member for Tweed, who is 100 per cent for Tweed and is standing up for rural people and his constituents in relation to a serious cross-border issue. In the context of daylight saving I acknowledge the presence in the chamber a moment ago of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Barry Collier: He has gone!
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: He is here; he is coming back. In the context of daylight saving, the drought and the many other issues faced by country people, there is daylight between what the Coalition and The Nationals propose for rural people and what this crowd opposite proposes. With respect to cost savings, the fact that this country has been managed proficiently and efficiently economically has meant that we have been able to contribute close to $1 billion of additional funding to country people, many of whom are in the electorate of the member for Monaro. In respect to daylight saving there is a huge gap between what the member for Monaro said today and what the Deputy Prime Minister and the Federal Government proposed yesterday.
The Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill 2007 is interesting. Many of the people I represent in Barwon have approached me verbally on the phone and physically at meetings about the extension of daylight saving. Most people do not oppose daylight saving—we have heard that tonight—but they oppose its extension because it continues to impinge on the quality of life and on the cost of conducting business. The member for Tweed represents those who operate small businesses as well as running their daily lives. Finally the people of the Tweed have a decent member to represent them!
The Barwon electorate is connected with Queensland constituents by well over 400 kilometres of State border. Our Queensland compatriots continually invade us because, as is well documented, the cost of doing business in Queensland is far cheaper than it is in New South Wales. One reason for that is that the people of Queensland have a sympathetic attitude towards people in the country. I believe that is a continuation of a theme that was pioneered by the Queensland National Party, a role we will continue in New South Wales. New South Wales businesses are running across the border to set up in Queensland because insurance premiums and workers compensation are cheaper and there is less bureaucracy and red tape to deal with. This proposal aligns us with Victoria and Tasmania. I spent six years in Tasmania. I must say that it is a great place to live, and it is 2414 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
also an interesting place. As an aside, I can tell the House that one can still play tennis at 10 o'clock at night in Tasmania, and that has nothing to do with daylight saving.
It is an absolute disgrace that we are not aligning ourselves with south-east Queensland and, indeed, Queensland in general. It is very important for the two States to synchronise time zones. Large amounts of money and many businesses are lost across the border purely because it is cheaper to run businesses in Queensland. I am not just referring to my electorate and the Tweed electorate; I include the Northern Tablelands electorate and other electorates along the northern section of the State. With the extra time it is cheaper to run across the border and do your shopping and all those other things. Millions of dollars are being lost to this State because it is far more convenient to cross that border to do business and spend money. If the Government is serious about supporting small business in this State, it should be serious about making it more convenient for small business to operate, and that should include synchronising the time frames between the eastern States. It is a disgrace that our time zones are not synchronised already.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Barwon will be heard in silence.
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: I support daylight saving, but I do not support its extension proposed in the bill. I will continue to espouse that view while representing the good people of Barwon. My constituents are worried because of the serious disconnection of the Government as demonstrated by some of the statements of Government members today and with what is happening to country communities. This is not just about the cost of doing business or the inconvenience to school students. I am proud to represent the area of Cobar, but the proposal in the bill means that schoolchildren will try to catch school buses at 7.30 in the morning whilst it is still dark. At present daylight saving runs to the margins of the seasons and extending it three weeks into spring and one week into winter will put country people on time margins that will further affect their quality of lifestyle. That is just unacceptable.
With regard to communication, some of the good members on the other side of the House are probably not aware that towns in central New South Wales, and places between Cobar and Bourke along the belt, do not have the benefit of a lot of commercial television. We rely on central standard time and on communication through companies like Imparja, not Prime News or Ten, which operate out of Sydney or Brisbane and are already one hour behind. It would probably suit the member for Monaro to live in parts of the Western Division because he would come home at 5 o'clock to watch Play School on television! He probably would do a bit of gardening too. He has plenty of time on his hands because he does not do anything else. He should take on board the views of the rural task force because it copped an absolute hiding for unveiling the disconnection between the New South Wales Labor Government and country people.
It is a serious disconnect. Here we go again. Government members are happy to support an extension of daylight saving, which will increase costs to business and affect our quality of life, because they are happy to toe the line. It is not acceptable. As I said, the member for Monaro can come out my way, get home at five o'clock and tune into Play School. It would probably suit him. We watch the evening news at about 9.30 p.m. This is not a family-friendly measure; it is a serious disconnect. Some social commentators have said that daylight saving and the extension to daylight saving is all about the affordability of a city lifestyle. People cannot afford to live in Sydney working five days a week. The affordability of this city's life is a disgrace. Government members should refer to social commentators such as Hugh McKay. People probably now work six days a week to afford to live in Sydney, which opens up discussion as to whether daylight saving is fuelling an addictive lifestyle or creating more recreational hours for our city cousins. People will not spend more time on recreation.
I am sure that the speakers who follow me in this debate will say that more daylight hours does not mean that people will indulge in more recreational activities, as the member for Sydney claimed. They work longer hours, and that is what will happen in this city. Daylight saving has nothing to do with fighting obesity. It is about fuelling a lifestyle in this city that is not affordable. That disgraceful situation needs to be highlighted. Country areas have a good quality of life that we want to maintain, and we will stand up for our constituents. The member for Tweed will stand up for his constituents, I will stand up for the constituents of Barwon and the Leader of The Nationals will stand up for the constituents of country New South Wales.
We will not make trade-offs so that people live a lifestyle in this city that is not affordable. That is not acceptable, and the Government should get around it another way. The social commentary is out there. The New South Wales Government would do well to take on board some of the comments being made by the social commentators. Daylight saving is not about recreation; it is about working longer hours. We already do that in the country. We want to protect and maintain our quality of life. We will not endorse the extension of daylight saving. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2415
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [8.42 p.m.]: As the member for Barwon rightly said, daylight saving and extensions of daylight saving are all about lifestyle and Sydney, Sydney, Sydney. It is not about the people in Bogan Gate and Peak Hill, who I represent, or people who are doing it tough. I have read comments in the newspaper about farmers getting bailed out with a one-off payment of $150,000 to get off their farms. Questions are being asked about whether people in Sydney would get paid $150,000 if their business went broke? The farmers have been in a drought situation for a long time—six years. They have been working all that time without a dollar coming in. That is the difference between the country and the Sydney lifestyle.
I was raised in Sydney and I welcomed daylight saving when it was introduced many years ago, when I was much younger than I am today. Now I have seen the light. Since I have lived in rural and regional New South Wales I realise what hard work is. My father was a hardworking man who worked in a factory. I am married to a hardworking man who works seven days a week. His hard work and the hard work of the men he employs keep State, local and Federal governments going. He gets up when the clock says five o'clock, whether it is daylight saving time or not. He is gone about five minutes later. When daylight saving is operating he comes home at least one hour later. He is not obese. Obesity, which was referred to by previous speakers, is not part of this argument. People will not have more leisure time as a result of this proposal. If they do, they will sit longer on their rear ends in pubs or drinking lattes. Quite a few people from the Bogan Gate and Peak Hill area have spoken to me about this matter. They do not want their names revealed, but one lady who wrote to me said:
In these days of so much rhetoric regarding saving the earth's resources, daylight saving stands out as a time when more of these resources than ever are being used. Not a thing is saved.
1. We have to use electric lights more, because it is dark in the mornings and the same at night. We use more power to cook meals also, because the times are so frustratingly out of kilter at the end of the day, sometimes at 10, 11 p.m. even midnight.
2. What about all the power used for major sporting events held at night during these daylight saving months. What about all the waste of bottles, cans, take-away wrappers and containers wasted for these functions or are we talking about a different country.
3. Do the Parliaments of our states and nation sit during daylight savings months. I think not. Many are travelling overseas then.
At this time of critical water shortages in rivers, major dams and smaller farm dams throughout the whole of south eastern Australia, I am writing in regard to the looming grain crop failure in most of this area again, being the 4th time in the past 6 years. The ongoing stress created by long working hours with little or no gain in the whole of the farming community is incalculable. The risk of increased suicide and heart attacks is daily becoming more likely. Already the rate of suicide in country Australia is reported to be 5-7 per week.
There is talk that some 40 farmers may be pushed out of farming in this western area—some mentioned 400. Added to this we will now be further stressed with extra 9 weeks of daylight saving. To this we are vehemently opposed. Even 4 months is too long in Australia.
Be aware also the summer time temperatures are often 8-10 degrees cooler on the coast than the inland, and so are the temperatures in Tasmania and why are the rest of us being penalised with further increase of daylight savings.
For those growing food crops long hours are involved from planting to picking and mostly the latter at the hottest, most humid time of the year—no 8 hour days.
Many farmers and small business owners in rural New South Wales work long hours during daylight savings resulting in less time spent with their families.
The claim that his proposal will lead to increased time with family and friends is a fallacy. That does not occur. In his agreement in principle speech the Minister for Tourism, who introduced this bill, said that it would be great for the people of Sydney. It will give them more time to go to the beach and on Sydney Harbour Bridge walks. The only beach in my area is Sandy Beach and the only bridge we can walk over is the L. H. Ford bridge, or one of the old rotting timber bridges. The program for renovating the timber bridges is still way behind. Our farmers, if they do not get rain or further government assistance, will have plenty of time to walk along Sandy Beach and across the bridge. Some central schools in my electorate, mainly those at Peak Hill, begin the new school term each year one week later than their city counterparts.
There are plans for a further extension of daylight saving. What will they do if daylight saving is extended? Will they start their school week two weeks into the school term because of the summer heat? They will then have two weeks less learning in the school term than their Sydney counterparts, yet will have to sit for the same Higher School Certificate and School Certificate examinations. An extension of daylight saving will affect the high school teachers at central schools, many of whom teach five different subjects. Many students in my area travel for between one and one-and-half hours each way on buses. They get up in the morning when it 2416 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
is dark and their return journey is slap bang in the middle of the day during extreme heat. While I appreciate the advantages of daylight saving for coastal voters, the decision to extend daylight saving is at the expense of rural New South Wales.
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [8.48 p.m.]: I shall make a brief contribution to the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill and express my opposition to any extension of daylight saving. Similarly to the member for Dubbo, when I was much younger and living on the coast I was very much in favour of daylight saving because I had an opportunity to come home and wander down to the beach or take part in many sporting and leisure activities. That is not the case anymore. In Tamworth I have had many representations from a range of people, spearheaded by Judith Law from Gunnedah, a passionate opponent of daylight saving. Judith has written many letters to local media outlets and has strongly pushed a whole range of views as to why daylight saving should not exist. She has garnered serious support in the local area from the farming community, but those living in Tamworth and in the major centres seem to take a different view.
The extension of daylight saving hours is the problem. Most people are now quite accustomed to daylight saving, but the effect of its extension upon smaller communities such as Niangala, Tambar Springs and Nundle is that young children are getting on buses at quite disgraceful early hours of the morning in the dark and are heading off to school, and they return home in the dark. Obesity should not be cited as a reason for the extension of daylight saving time because that is not the issue at all. People in the country do not use the extra hour for leisure; they use the extra hour to work longer and create employment. Farmers, the elderly and parents appear to be fairly strongly opposed to the extension.
A number of members have said that they consulted their communities, who are very much in favour of the extension, including communities represented by some of the country members of the Liberal Party. That surprises me. My constituents have let me know that this issue concerns them. The Olympic Games being held in Sydney warranted an extension of daylight saving time. I do not foresee any Olympic Games coming to New South Wales in the near future. I can understand some part of the reasoning in attempting to align business trading hours across State borders, but as the member for Barwon has quite rightly pointed out, disparate problems emerge because of different time zones between New South Wales and Queensland. I will not take up much more of the time of the House except to say that I have listened to the voice of my electorate. I express my disappointment that, with the support of members who have spoken in favour of the bill, it will clearly be passed.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [8.50 p.m.]: I oppose the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill. My reasons for opposing the bill have been expressed by other members of The Nationals. The concerns they have expressed in the House on behalf of their constituents are the concerns of my constituents. I draw to the attention of the House some of the ramifications of extending daylight saving time. In the northern part of New South Wales tremendous pressure will be imposed upon truck drivers. Trucks carrying loads to Sydney will not be able to load and travel out of Brisbane until after closing time at 5.00 p.m., yet truck drivers will be expected to deliver their load in Sydney by 8.00 a.m. the next morning. The extension of daylight saving is imposing greater pressures upon the nation's truck drivers. This matter has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions by different trucking companies. It is an issue that seems to have been overlooked by the Government.
The Government has introduced legislation to change the time frame of the State to coincide with what it believes Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong require, but without giving any thought to the increased pressure being borne by interstate truck drivers who operate between New South Wales and Queensland. That matter should be taken into account. It is an important reason why I and other members of The Nationals will not support the bill.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [8.53 p.m.]: I support my Nationals colleagues and members who represent country electorates in regional New South Wales. They have raised valid concerns during debate on the Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill. They have explained why an extension to daylight saving will not be supported or welcomed by the majority of people who live in country areas. Some coastal communities may be in a position to support this legislation, but many young mothers will have difficulties putting their children to bed at the designated time while the sun is still shining. It will be equally difficult for them to get their children up to go to school while it is still dark. That is what will happen during the extension of daylight saving, and that is not an easy life.
I spent three days last week in the company of the member for Murray-Darling travelling throughout drought-stricken areas. I have witnessed firsthand the devastation suffered by people who live in remote areas 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2417
and the hardship they are enduring. We should not add another burden by the extension of daylight saving time to the difficulties they are already experiencing. As quite rightly pointed out by country Coalition and Independent members, most country people do not work to a clock but work from daylight until dark. Those who work to a clock in businesses in towns will probably remain at work for longer periods rather than use daylight saving time for leisure. For example, they will not have the opportunity, as suggested by the member for Sydney, to take a Sydney Harbour Bridge walk or, as suggested by the member for Monaro, to enjoy some gardening. The majority of country people use daylight to do some work.
Mr Steve Whan: But they are going to return from work.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: I am really amazed by the member for Monaro. He really is a boy. Bombala, a township of hardworking people, is in his electorate. He should try to tell people who live in a very cold climate that they will have to get out of bed early during a chilly time of the year and return home during darkness at that chilly time of the year, purely because he supports a Sydney-centric Government that has decided, as a result of Council of Australian Governments arrangements, to align New South Wales and Tasmania and extend daylight saving time. If the Government is serious about improving efficiency, it should be aligning New South Wales time zones with Queensland time zones. As the member for Lismore quite rightly pointed out, there is a safety aspect to consider in relation to truck drivers travelling from Queensland down the Pacific Highway to Sydney.
Mr Thomas George: And up to Queensland.
Mrs Dawn Fardell: And along the Newell Highway.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: Along the Pacific and Newell highways, fatal crashes are occurring on a regular basis. However, this legislation will create more pressure for drivers to travel from one destination to another in a shortened time frame. That is unacceptable. Approximately 30,000 heavy vehicles a week travel through the Coffs Harbour electorate, and that number of vehicles increases daily. The Government should give earnest consideration to the way that country people operate. This legislation should not focus on Sydney connecting with time zones in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. This legislation should be about country people being able to reconnect with their city cousins and city cousins having some empathy for country people who do not work to a clock. After all, cows are not milked according to a clock but according to when Mother Nature dictates. Farmers work from daylight until dark, especially during tough economic times such as those caused by the current drought.
As the member for Tamworth and the member for Dubbo rightly have stated, it is not just the farmers who suffer but also the contractors and support industries who operate at odd hours as a result of working according to daylight hours, not according to a clock. Because of business pressures, household pressures and the whole kit and caboodle of stresses that are created by daylight saving time in regional communities, the Government should give further consideration to this legislation. I admit that when I was in the Sydney with my family for the Olympic Games, daylight saving was fantastic, but that was yet another example of people in Sydney not working to a clock. The only timetable the people of Sydney followed in 2000 was the Olympic Games events program and the public transport timetable, and at any time, even at 3.00 a.m., people could be seen at Darling Harbour celebrating the mood of the Olympics.
It was not daylight saving that made the Sydney Olympics great. In my opinion, daylight saving was only incorporated into Sydney Olympic Games preparations because of overseas screening of events on television. If the Government is intent on changing the New South Wales time zone or unifying time zones, why not conform to Queensland time? That proposal was very well enunciated by the member for Tweed. During his speech he confirmed his 100 per cent commitment to the Tweed electorate.
Mr Steve Whan: It does not do much for my two State boundaries.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: It is bizarre that the member for Monaro will play the political game of the Labor Party in Sydney, yet ignore the needs of his electorate by voting in favour of this legislation. He will not reflect the concerns expressed by people who live in his electorate. I would enjoy seeing a few so-called country members, including the Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra who introduced this legislation and the member for Bathurst, voting with the Coalition to support the concerns expressed by their electorates and thus voting against this bill. 2418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.59 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of The Nationals, and members representing the electorates of Wagga Wagga, Monaro, Smithfield, Albury, Sydney, Tweed, Barwon, Dubbo, Tamworth, Lismore and Coffs Harbour for their contributions. Daylight saving is popular with a significant portion of the New South Wales population and these changes are aimed at getting rid of confusion, reducing the regulatory burden and giving people more time to spend outdoors with their families. The Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Bill is about achieving uniform start and finishing dates among those States that have and are committed to keeping daylight saving time.
Western Australia is just taking its first tentative steps towards introducing daylight saving and we need to let them do that in their own time. Following a referendum in 2009, Western Australia will make the decision about whether to be a daylight saving State. Queensland and the Northern Territory, sadly, are unlikely to adopt daylight saving time, and that is a matter specific to their geography. But I urge the members for Tweed, Barwon and Lismore to lobby the Queensland Government to come on line with daylight saving and match the other States.
Mr Thomas George: I have trouble lobbying the New South Wales Government, let alone going to Queensland!
Mr BARRY COLLIER: Mark Vaile was in the gallery tonight.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The Parliamentary Secretary has the call and will be heard in silence.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: I am sure the member for Lismore has connections with the Federal Leader of The Nationals. He could assist him. In New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania it is only common sense to have a uniform starting and finishing time for daylight saving. On that point, it is important to note in response to the Leader of The Nationals that New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have reached an agreement on harmonising and extending daylight saving arrangements to April 2008. New South Wales is the first State to introduce legislation giving effect to that agreement.
Harmonisation of daylight saving arrangements among these south-eastern jurisdictions will reduce confusion about when daylight saving starts and finishes around Australia. Consultation is obviously very important and many members spoke with passion of consultation with their constituents—all except, it seems, the Leader of The Nationals. Whether he consulted his constituents we do not know, but it is important to point out to him that relevant Cabinet Ministers consulted with affected stakeholder groups in their portfolio areas and I am advised that the Minister for Primary Industries consulted with peak industry groups, including the New South Wales Farmers Association and winegrowers.
I understand that farming communities and relevant landholders may object to the proposal. However, the argument that farmers may be adversely affected by an extension and harmonisation of daylight saving time is not based on any solid evidence. Daylight saving has been a reality in New South Wales for years and the effect of this bill will be simply an extension of the status quo in a uniform matter. There is no quantifiable negative impact on rural communities, and given the benefits to New South Wales from the changes far outweigh arguments in opposition, the Government supports the bill.
In response to something the member for Sydney said about daylight saving going back to the days of Benjamin Franklin—one of the framers of the American Constitution—the greatest benefit of the changes proposed by this bill would be the consistency among the daylight saving jurisdictions. Daylight saving can encourage a more active and healthy lifestyle, for example, by letting sporting teams practice during weekday evenings in daylight. It can save energy by having workplaces operate in the cooler part of the morning and by requiring less lighting in homes in the evening. It contributes positively to the economy via tourism, and that is particularly important to the member for Tweed because tourism plays a very important part in his electorate. Most tourists are used to an extended period of summertime.
Daylight saving in the European Union has operated from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October—approximately six months—since 2002. In the United States of America and Canada daylight saving operates from the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October—approximately seven months. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2419
Daylight saving can also result in a decrease in the number of pedestrians and motor vehicle fatalities. Studies have shown this effect of daylight saving as a result of there being more natural light at the time of day when people are most active on the roads. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That the bill be now agreed to in principle—put.
The House divided.
[In division]
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! Before we proceed to the count I make it clear that the two back rows on the Opposition side of the Chamber shall be deemed to be the ayes for the purpose of this division.
Ayes, 65
Mr Amery Ms Firth Mr Morris Ms Andrews Ms Gadiel Mr Oakeshott Mr Aplin Mr Gibson Mr O'Dea Mr Aquilina Ms Goward Mr O'Farrell Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mr Pearce Mr Baird Mr Harris Mrs Perry Mr Baumann Mr Hartcher Mr Rees Ms Beamer Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Ms Berejiklian Mr Hickey Mr Roberts Mr Borger Mrs Hopwood Mr Shearan Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mrs Skinner Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Smith Ms Burton Mr Kerr Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Khoshaba Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Constance Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Coombs Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms McKay Mr Whan Mr Costa Mr McLeay Mr R. C. Williams Mr Daley Ms McMahon Tellers, Ms D'Amore Ms Megarrity Mr Maguire Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Martin
Noes, 16
Mr Cansdell Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr Piccoli Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Provest Mr Fraser Mr Souris Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Stoner Mr George Mr Humphries Mr Torbay Mr R. W. Turner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill. 2420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE AMENDMENT (LEASING AND LICENSING) BILL 2007
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 27 June 2007.
Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [9.18 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Leasing and Licensing) Bill. In coming to this decision we liaised with a number of environmental organisations and held lengthy discussions with the National Parks Association of New South Wales and the Environment Liaison Office. Like the Opposition, these groups agree with the intent of the bill to create opportunities for sustainable visitor use of public recreational and regional parks and State conservation areas in line with existing provisions in place for national parks.
National parks are wonderful assets that should be enjoyed by all. They ensure the future enjoyment of environmentally sensitive areas of New South Wales. All members will have used national parks for family picnics, bushwalks, birdwatching and appreciation of Australia's extraordinary environment, and volunteers in national parks make a great contribution to their maintenance. These amendments will encourage more people to use the parks for the purposes for which they were intended.
A range of options is available and this bill, which is designed to ensure consistency between the various categories of parks, is necessary and overdue. However, it must contain limitations. The environmental organisations with which I have held discussions have raised a number of concerns, particularly with regard to the leases that will be available for commercial activities in national parks. For that reason the Opposition reserves the right to amend the legislation in the Legislative Council. We are particularly concerned about the terms of commercial leases that might be available in national parks and consider it necessary to impose some restrictions on those leases. There should certainly be time frames.
The Opposition also believes that all commercial leases should be specifically referred to in plans of management and that that is a necessary part of ensuring that our parks, in whichever category, are administered appropriately with commercial arrangements that are properly understood, transparent and subject to public consultation provisions similar to those in section 151B of the Act. It is also important to review plans of management. Sadly, at the moment plans of management need have no review period. Therefore, as times and science change, and as the functioning of parks changes, there is no formal mechanism for reviewing plans of management—if they exist—to ensure they conform with the intent of the legislation. It is important that these concerns are properly addressed in the upper House.
It is also important—again foreshadowing concerns that will be pursued in the Legislative Council— that we ensure that environmental management and the impact of activities undertaken under the leases are undertaken properly and publicly. They should be undertaken in such a way that the New South Wales public appreciates the purpose of environmental management, the impacts of the activities undertaken and whether there is any need to change environmental management arrangements and management plans in national parks. Having said that, these amendments are important because at the moment we have seven categories of park but two ways of managing them.
The purpose of nature reserves is to preserve the environment. Visitation is carefully managed and commercial activities are not always encouraged. Regional parks emphasise the provision of recreational opportunities. Where it is compatible with natural and cultural values, a regional park can accommodate a large number of visitors and an array of commercial visitor services such as kiosks, barbeque areas and even some forms of accommodation. The management principles for the different reserve categories guide how visitors can enjoy and use the various categories of parks. Sadly, as it stands there are two types of parks in the sense that there are two types of arrangements.
The leasing and licensing provisions in the bill establish a framework for managing commercial activities in parks. Commercial activities, including commercial guided tours, are permitted in parks. The types of commercial operations allowed vary and are regulated by leases and licences and include filming, food sales, cycling, skiing and canoeing. The power to issue licences and franchises for commercial activities across park categories is an important part of this legislation. The Opposition encourages the Government to find ways to extend that for the good management of our parks, including limited but well thought through powers to enable grazing in areas of national parks where that might be useful. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2421
Provisions in the existing legislation allow the issuing of licences and franchises relating to national parks and historic sites. As has been noted by the Government, there are no such powers in the legislation relating to regional parks, State conservation areas, karst conservation reserves or Aboriginal areas. This is an anomalous situation creating some uncertainty as to whether the legislation was intended specifically to limit the grant of licences and franchises for commercial activities only to national parks and historic sites. There appear to be no policy reasons that the commercial licensing and franchising provisions should differ between national parks, historic sites, regional parks, State conservation areas, karst conservation reserves or Aboriginal areas.
The current differences appear to have arisen because new park categories have been added to the legislation since it was proclaimed in 1974. Commercial activities are authorised in national parks and historic sites but may not be authorised in other park categories that specifically emphasise recreation and sustainable visitor use as management principles. It is therefore important that we amend the legislation to resolve that anomaly. It is important, whatever category of park we are considering, that the people of New South Wales have access, and that inevitably involves commercial activity.
Members on this side of the House believe that, far from being the enemy of good conservation, commercial activity will improve the management of parks. It will provide a source of income and engender in the New South Wales public a cultural awareness and appreciation that will enable a government of whatever persuasion confidently to understand and to develop management programs that enhance that appreciation and the development of commercial activities that support the visiting and use of national parks without damaging the fragile environments that are sometimes involved.
The amendments in this bill will specifically allow the director general of the Department of Environment and Climate Change to issue licences to carry on a trade, business or occupation within State conservation areas, regional parks, karst conservation areas and Aboriginal areas. That means they will facilitate tourism and business opportunities in rural and regional areas and will encourage consistency across all categories of park. It is time that we as a community recognise that conservation areas are an important part of life for Australians. Unlike other places in the world that have lost so much of their natural environment, we in Australia still enjoy enormous amounts of unpolluted land and land that still functions in the way it did before man had such an incredible impact.
The Opposition believes that this is important legislation and supports the amendments. However, I foreshadow that Opposition members in the upper House will raise concerns about accountability, ministerial discretion and the importance of limiting licensing of commercial activities to ensure that we do not end up with national parks that are really theme parks or that conservation values are lost over time.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.28 p.m.]: I support the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Leasing and Licensing) Bill 2007. Our national parks—particularly the parks in the south-east—are obviously a wonderful asset and they provide a terrific economic benefit to our region. This bill contains measures that are designed to ensure that commercial leasing and licensing can go ahead without problems. It also harmonises some commercial licensing across different park categories and ensures that, as has always been intended, licences and franchises are consistent with park plans of management. Many areas of New South Wales, particularly in the area that I have the privilege to represent, have wonderful national park assets. We must ensure that we look after those natural assets for many generations and preserve them in the condition in which people want to see them. A balancing act is involved in ensuring that we allow and encourage people to visit our parks and that our local communities enjoy the economic benefits while maintaining the natural value of the parks.
In the south-east, Kosciuszko National Park is one of the major employment generators for our region. In the Snowy River shire the winter gross regional product from winter tourism is about $290 million, with total annual equivalent employment opportunities of about 3,264 jobs—obviously a massive input into the economy of the Snowy River shire. The Kosciuszko National Park on its own is one of the key reasons that the tourism and hospitality industry is the biggest employer in the Snowy River shire. It has been the growth employment area over many years and it is absolutely vital to the economic base of the region. Winter tourism and the ski industry is the big thing, but more and more people are being attracted to the area because of the summer tourism potential of the Kosciuszko National Park and other parks in the region.
The South East Forest National Park, which has been enhanced by Labor Governments in New South Wales, also offers employment opportunities in the region. Its tourism opportunities are well known, with many people visiting to appreciate the wonderful forest areas. Areas like Bombala promote drive-yourself tourism in 2422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
the region. Major attractions include the area's many parks and reserves. Areas closer to Cooma in the South East Forest National Park attract a huge number of campers each year. It is quite a balancing act to maintain the quality of the facilities and the natural surroundings that attract visitors and to ensure that economic and tourism benefits return to the region. There are many commercial activities operating in the national parks that I have the pleasure to represent. Obviously Kosciuszko National Park is the prime example. As well as leases for the ski-fields, other businesses operate outside the lease areas. People like to go mountain-bike riding around the national park—a terrific, healthy activity for people to engage in. Such activities, when managed well, cause no damage to the national park and can really benefit the region economically.
The bill is welcome. From my perspective, as the member for Monaro, I acknowledge that we can improve the way that we promote our national parks to ensure that people can appreciate this wonderful asset, and there are matters that I am interested to pursue to ensure that people experience the wilderness, which is an important asset for the region that I represent. Kosciuszko National Park, the South East Forest National Park and the other national parks in the south-east of New South Wales are a great credit to the Government and to those who work in them. They are truly wonderful assets. The extremely committed workforce in the national parks do a wonderful job managing such areas, making them available for tourists and improving visitor facilities. Many are being improved as we speak.
The bill will help us to ensure that commercial activities in the area actually attract more tourists to the region. Tourists provide a massive economic input in the region. The gross direct visitor expenditure generated by New South Wales ski resorts—and this relates only to last winter—was $537 million. Ski resorts are a massive employment generator for the region. If one adds to that the expenditure generated by summer tourism—people who walk to Kosciuszko, those who take the chairlift from Thredbo, those who come to the region to walk along some of the wonderful trails, perhaps up to Cascades and those sorts of areas—one realises the huge benefit for the region. I am pleased that the bill will make it easier for that to continue. The bill will smooth out some of the issues that existed with commercial licensing and will ensure that we continue to manage the parks for the benefit of conservation and for those who would like to visit and appreciate this beautiful region. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [9.35 p.m.]: When I saw this bill on the business paper my heart began to flutter. I thought: Finally, we are seeing some management of national parks in New South Wales. The new Minister, who was the Commissioner of Rural Fire Services in New South Wales, looked at the management regime in America and Canada and said, "If we want to allocate adequate funds to national parks to ensure that they are managed properly, we must make some money from them to implement that management regime."
In Canada—which I visited a number of years ago—people drive through national parks on magnificent highways. The national parks are fenced to protect the native animals. I am sure we would all like to see that happen in New South Wales. On the verge between the highways and the national parks in Canada, stands of fruit trees are grown and harvested to provide a commercial return to the national parks. This enables them to fund and implement proper management regimes. And what are those proper management regimes? Weeds and rubbish are kept to a minimum and feral animals are kept out. The biodiversity of the national parks is protected.
As was mentioned by the member for Monaro, in Kosciuszko National Park for years income from skiing activities and tourist activities through the summer months provided funds to maintain some areas, although there have been reports criticising the Government for not maintaining roads and other infrastructure throughout the park. Recently, there have been moves afoot by local people who utilise the park to preserve the huts within Kosciuszko National Park. I trust that the member for Monaro is supporting those people in their endeavours.
One of the biggest problems in the last 12 months with regards to national parks—I have raised this matter in this Parliament previously and I raise it again tonight—is the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. The National Parks Association tied the Government's hands and said, "We want this area as a national park." The area was State forest and was being extremely well managed by State Forests. Its undergrowth was being kept down, young trees were coming through, older trees were being harvested and the community made good money from the cypress pine, which many regard as weed. In fact it was a real industry, but the National Parks Association demanded that the Government declare a moratorium and lock it up—and that is exactly what happened.
With the Leader of The Nationals and others, I visited the region. On one side of the road we saw a very well-managed State forest. We saw an abundance of wildlife—little lizards, skinks and other creatures that 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2423
you would not see anywhere else in any other local forest or eco-system. There were birds and wallabies. It really was a pleasure to be there. On the other side of the road, however, was a forest that you would swear had been poisoned. It was dead because it had been allowed to overgrow. The young cypress coming through was as thick as the hair on a cat's back. A comment was made on the day, "It won't be long before this burns." And lo and behold, last November in excess of 100,000 acres of cypress pine was incinerated in a fire in that very area. Not only did the fire burn the timber and kill probably one of the largest koala colonies in New South Wales; it also burnt the carbon in the soil. It has been estimated that up to 100 tonnes of carbon—the element that the forests extract from the air—is emitted in our cities through greenhouse gases and other waste from our cars. It is estimated that as a result of that fire alone over two million tonnes of carbon went into the atmosphere. That is poor management.
What the National Parks and Wildlife Service should have done is maintain the grazing leases in those areas, especially during one of the worst droughts this country has ever seen. If the grazing leases had continued in those areas, we would have had an opportunity to keep down the woody weeds and the other rubbish, so that when the lightning strike hit and the fire started it would not have spread the way it did. I will relate another disturbing fact as an aside. I happened to be in Narrabri during the week of the fires. You could see the smoke from Narrabri.
I spoke to two National Parks and Wildlife Service fire volunteers. I did not tell them where I work, but I asked them, "How are the fires going out there?" They said, "You won't put this one out." I said, "What about the koalas?" They said, "Well, they're dead on the ground. They have burst from the heat of the fire." They were absolutely disgusted with the management practices they saw within the national parks. They were ashamed that the Government had managed the park so poorly that the fire wiped out the entire biodiversity of the area. All the things that we purport to protect in the national parks were destroyed because of poor management.
If the Minister—who used to be the Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service—were serious about the issue, he would direct that the majority of the national parks that have been formed under this Labor Government over a number of years, both on private land and on forestry land that was previously put out for lease to graziers, be again put out for lease. Indeed, it would be a double help for the graziers. The graziers who have been suffering the effects of the drought would have an opportunity to agist their cattle and at least save their breeding herds. At the same time it would keep down the woody weed, grass and other material that facilitates ground fires and builds up as a result of poor management. That is sensible management. It is high time that we in this State accepted that over the last 200 years of white settlement, as well as Aboriginal settlement prior to that, the ecology of this country and the way we manage it have been severely altered. We should be looking at managing our national parks rather than adopting a lock-up and lock-out mentality.
I am disappointed that whilst the legislation will allow some commercial activities, neither the Minister nor anyone else has said that grazing or commercial thinnings of old forestry areas within New South Wales national parks would be allowed. Two years ago when Pine Creek State Forest—which is in my electorate and which was the most productive State forest in New South Wales—was locked up as a national park, we were promised that the commercial timber in the forest, the Gympie messmate, and the acre upon acre and row upon row of flooded gum in the forest, would be harvested and the forest returned to a native state.
The member for Castle Hill was in the area with me at the time, before the forest was turned into a national park. We were told that if the National Parks and Wildlife Service took over the forest and turned it into a national park, the timber would be taken out. The member for Castle Hill ought to visit the area again and have a look, because that has not happened. It is now been branded a national park. There are opportunities to take out the timber and replace it over a period —
Mr Michael Richardson: With exotic species.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: —with exotic species, such as Gympie messmate, to return the forest to something that resembles native bush. That forest will never be the same again. In fact, the area where the Gympie messmate is planted is known as the bullock paddock. That is because before the area was cleared and planted out it was a bullock paddock. The Government's rush for preservation, rather than managed conservation, will not benefit the long-term future of this country in the true preservation and conservation of our native species, both flora and fauna.
As I said, Minister Koperberg could have been a little more proactive in this regard. When he was the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service he loved to claim grazing as a hazard reduction technique. The Minister 2424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
had an opportunity to re-allow commercial grazing on agistment, to help the drought-stricken farmers, to improve the ecology, and to lessen the fire risk in national parks, but he failed to do so. Whilst we do not oppose the legislation, we express our disappointment that the Government has not gone anywhere near far enough in opening up these national parks for a commercial return that would benefit the people of New South Wales and the ecology and biodiversity within national parks.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [9.46 p.m.]: The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Leasing and Licensing) Bill is an acknowledgement that someone somewhere within the Government got it wrong, and got it dreadfully wrong. In his agreement in principle speech the Minister spoke about anomalies. What has happened is not really an anomaly at all. When the new categories of State conservation area, regional parks, karst conservation areas and Aboriginal areas were added to the Act, the Government neglected to alter the sections relating to licensing and leasing. Lest members think that this is something that occurred under a Coalition government at some time in the past, I will refer to the dates when these new categories of reserve were added to the Act. The new categories of reserve were added as follows: regional parks in December 1995, Aboriginal ownership in November 1996, karst conservation areas in November 1996, and State conservation areas in December 2001. Members would remember that previously State conservation areas were known as State recreation areas; it was effectively a name change.
The Minister now says there are express powers in the Act that allow the issue of licences and franchises relating to national parks and historic sites. However, there are no such powers in the Act in relation to regional parks, State conservation areas, karst conservation areas or Aboriginal areas. The question is: What was the Government thinking when it drafted the legislation for these new types of reserve? And why has it waited until now to do something about the problem? After all, regional parks were first gazetted in December 1995, nearly 12 years ago. What prompted the sudden interest? Is it some sort of a revelation, a eureka moment within the Minister's department? Is it the change of Minister that has brought this about? I do not know.
I really cannot believe that no leases or licences have been granted in these categories of reserve since December 1995. It begs the question whether all the leases and licences that have been signed since December 1995, in relation to regional parks for example, have been illegal, and whether the trusts that have been running those regional parks over that period have been acting illegally when they have ratified leases and licences. The fact that the Government has found it necessary to introduce this bill is a clear indicator of its mindset over the last 12 years regarding national parks—that is, visitors are not welcome in national parks.
In his speech the Minister said that one of the State Plan's environmental targets was increasing the number of visits to State Government parks and reserves by 20 per cent by 2016. I ask: On what basis? I put to the previous Minister, Bob Debus, a question on notice about this matter. I asked the Minister, in relation to a whole range of parks, what was the actual expenditure in 2002-03, what were the number of visitors to each park, what was the gross revenue from entry fees, what was the gross revenue from concessions, what was the gross revenue from camping fees, and how much revenue was derived from other sources. I thought it was important to know how many people went to the parks and how much revenue the Government was obtaining from each park. I think most people would think the Government would have such information at its fingertips, that simply by pressing a key on a computer it would have the information. What reply did I get from the Minister? The Minister said:
With respect to expenditure and revenue from park user fees, I am advised that, in general, park expenditure is allocated on a regional basis rather than on an individual park basis.
That is pretty much as far as he went. Then we got around to visitor numbers. I would have thought that this would have been the basis on which decision-making in respect of national parks was made and that the budgeting relied heavily on this statistic. The Minister said:
With respect to visitor numbers, I am pleased to advise that more and more people are visiting and camping in our national parks.
Whoopy-do! He went on:
It is estimated that, over recent years— estimated, I might add, there are no figures here—
there have been more than 21 million visits to NSW national parks annually. With respect to the parks listed by the Honourable Member, I can also advise that park visitation varies enormously.
26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2425
As though we did not know this. As though we did not understand that one of the new national parks the Government created over the past 12 years is visited by fewer people than Kosciuszko. He said:
For example, only 3000 people a year are estimated to visit Mebbin National Park—
I have visited Mebbin National Park on the North Coast—
compared to more than two and half million people who are estimated to visit Kosciuszko National Park. I anticipate that visitation figures for 2003 will be available in the coming months.
Of course, they never were. The Minister was really saying he did not know how many people visited national parks. Why did he not? At that time 169 national parks were in existence in New South Wales, and the Government had traffic counters in place in just 30 of them. In the other 139 it did not have a clue. The figures were all based on surveys carried out by the Government, asking people whether they had visited a national park in the past 12 months. One would not know where they had gone, what they had done there, how long they spent there, whether they had gone bushwalking there or had just driven through or whether they got out at a lookout, looked at the view, returned to their car and drove on.
I am wondering how the Government intends to increase visits to national parks by 20 per cent when the Minister does not know how many people are visiting national parks in the first place. I would have thought that was pretty hard to do. I see the Minister's advisers sitting in the Chamber. They are working on this and they will come up with some sort of specious answer, rather similar to one I got from the Minister when I asked him that fairly simple question four years ago. I agree with the current Minister, the member for Blue Mountains, on the need to encourage visitations to parks but I also question what evidence there is that this is happening.
Those 20-plus million visits to New South Wales national parks compare with 28.6 million visits to Victorian national parks. Victoria is a smaller State with a smaller population, yet the estimated number of visits is considerably smaller in New South Wales than it is in Victoria. The member for Coffs Harbour mentioned that the United States National Parks Service posts visitor information on its website, while the bigger United States parks produce monthly releases on visitor numbers and revenues for local media. That is how important they see the issue as being. If members want to find out how many visitors there were last month to Yosemite National Park, Sequoia National Park, Grand Teton National Park, or the Grand Canyon National Park, they can do that right now in their rooms in Parliament,but they cannot find out the answer to the same question about New South Wales national parks.
A similar sort of thing happens in Canada. Its national parks are visited by millions of people a year. The Canadian Government stopped automatic increases in funding to the National Parks Service because it felt the parks should be capable of raising more of their own revenue. That was years ago and I do not know whether that freeze is still in place. It may have increased the funding to some small extent since then but certainly at that time the Canadian Government wanted to encourage the National Park Service to raise a lot of its own revenue.
Lest members think this is just me talking, in 2004 the Auditor-General had something to say about this. In 2004 the Auditor-General reported on the management of the parks system. He noted that the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service had yet to develop an adequate information base to measure its success. Neither the Government nor the National Parks and Wildlife Service knows what is going on. It is hard to see on that basis how the target in the State Plan is to be achieved. The Minister also spoke about increasing tourism. I happen to think, as members on this side of the House do, that it is a good idea to have people visit national parks, because then they will appreciate what a wonderful asset they are and they will want to preserve them. But so far as increasing tourism is concerned, the Minister should look at his own electorate.
The plan of management for the Blue Mountains National Park states that "the service will actively participate in local and regional tourism organisations, economic development organisations and the Department of Tourism" not to improve "revenue generating opportunities" but to "ensure that natural and cultural values are not compromised by tourism within the park." The plan of management is saying not that we want to encourage people to visit the Blue Mountains National Park, a wonderful asset right on the doorstep of Sydney; we want to make sure that all those nasty little feet tramping around the park do not damage the park. I do not see how the Minister can reconcile in his mind this desire to increase tourism with what is happening in his own electorate. One of the objects of the National Parks Act is "fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation," yet the plan of management for one of our biggest and most-visited national parks is all about keeping people out rather than encouraging them to visit. 2426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
Also close to the Minister's home and very relevant to the bill before the House is Jenolan Caves, a karst conservation area run down by the Government and sent broke in late 2003. I understand things are not going too well down there since the Government took over the Caves House lease. I understand visitation levels are down, but exactly how far down they are I do not know. In 2005 I received a letter from the previous Minister for the Environment regarding Jenolan Caves. I was concerned that the bill that was going through the House at that time would remove a lot of the transparency that had existed when the caves were being run by a separate trust, which reported annually to this Parliament. This is how the Minister responded to those concerns:
Annual reporting—financial and environmental reporting
To ensure transparency and accountability in the management of Jenolan and the other DEC-managed caves, the DEC will prepare, in close consultation with the KMAC and the JMAC, a State of the Caves Report. This will be linked to the new State of the Parks reporting system, with the first State of the Caves report expected to be published in 2006.
The DEC will also ensure that, as part of its Annual Report tabled in the NSW Parliament, separate information will be included on financial management reports for the 4 reserves, including the capital works program, and the State of the Environment/Caves reports. In broad terms, this information will be similar to that contained in the existing Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust Annual Report.
These two measures, I believe, respond constructively to your concern that, should management responsibility for Jenolan Caves be transferred from the trust to the DEC, accountability to the broader public and to the Parliament will be reduced. My aim is to ensure this does not occur.
What do members think is the state of reporting on Jenolan Caves, Wombeyan Caves, Abercrombie Caves and other caves previously managed by the trust? They can go to the DEC annual report. The former Minister promised they would get as much information in the DEC annual report as they were getting in the trust annual report. I have been through it with a fine toothcomb and I can tell members what is in it. It is one single line. So we have gone from an entire report on Jenolan Caves to one single line. This is for what ought to be one of the jewels in the crown of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. It should be a profit centre for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is supposed to be the major tourism attraction in inland New South Wales, and we get no information whatsoever about it in Parliament. This state of the caves report has been buried somewhere appropriately deep underground and it has not surfaced yet.
So I am wondering what this change of heart means for the national parks system. Does it mean that the Government will actively encourage people to visit our parks? That would be a complete turnaround; it is the complete opposite of what the Government has done in the past. Or is the Government talking about these things because something is bubbling under the surface, a lease is up for renewal, the lawyers have had a little panic attack and feel that this needs to be addressed or a large compensation claim will emerge from the woodwork? I think it is a case of the latter rather than the former. I do not think there is any change of heart on the Government's part. I do not think people will be encouraged to visit national parks, as the Minister suggested. I do not think the Government will embrace the public. I do not think we will see a large number of new leases and licences written into contracts for our national parks.
Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [10.00 a.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill, with which I agree in principle. However, it does not go far enough, as the member for Coffs Harbour said. The bill is interesting on face value, but scratch away at the surface a little and we find that the bill is proposed by the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, who is the former Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. I live in a rural area that has no fewer than seven national parks that have been devastated by bushfire throughout summer, especially in 2000 and 2001. During bushfires the most important aspect is accessibility to national parks. So I think the Government is opening up the national parks to make them more accessible. I wonder whether the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water has had his ears bashed by the Rural Fire Service, saying that national parks have become overgrown and closed off and firefighters simply cannot get into the national parks to save them at the most important time.
The first thought that struck me was whether that is the underlying issue. As someone who has been in the Rural Fire Service and fought many, many bushfires in my backyard, I know that accessibility to national parks is most important. I have witnessed the closure of national parks by the unelected Greens decision makers over the past 12 years under the name of the Department of Environment and Conservation to sustain the environment. Suddenly, we do not have to care about so-called climate change or the planet burning up; we can wind the clock back a little, open the national parks and let people access them. As someone who has been involved in the horse industry, which is suffering dreadfully at the moment, let me say that people in the industry will be glad that once again they can explore these wonderful national parks. Across the wonderful electorate of Hawkesbury there are some terrific pristine national parks. 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2427
But that is the point: they are our national parks. They are there for all Australians, not just for those who think national parks should be sustained for biodiversity, et cetera. National parks should be there for everyone, whether they be horse riders or drivers of recreational vehicles, to enjoy, not destroy. National parks provide an enormous benefit to tourists and people simply undertaking recreational activities. As I said, national parks should be accessible, and I am glad to see that once again we are opening up these areas in some way. The member for Coffs Harbour raised an extremely important point. He said that in times of drought these national parks could provide some temporary grazing for certain livestock. That is an extremely important point when we have an extraordinarily high rate of suicides in farmers across western New South Wales.
The member for Lismore knows that farmers in those areas have suffered. Generations of people have lived on these farms and built up breeding stock; now farmers are destroying their stock because they cannot feed them. That is disgraceful, considering that the national parks almost next door to their properties could be opened temporarily to sustain their breeding stock through the most horrific drought in this country's history. That is why I say that the bill simply does not go far enough. It is great to see some movement, some winding back of restrictions, but we should consider the benefit to farmers of opening up national parks. Farmers would be able to maintain their breeding stock; farmers would be able to sustain their stock on decent grazing ground until the rain comes, when they would move on.
I point out that although the Government is winding back accessibility to national parks, it is still placing heavy restrictions on private farming land that has some environmental value. Peter Spencer of Cooma wrote to me some time ago. The Government has restricted the use of his land in the name of the environment and he is fighting that through the courts. Imagine owning land for many generations, as Peter Spencer's family has; imagine paying for farmland and working one's guts out for it, suffering from the droughts and all the problems that farmers suffer, and suddenly the Government walks in and says, "You cannot use that land because it is precious; you cannot go in there." So Mr Spencer is fighting through the courts for his right to use his land. Imagine if one walked into the backyard of a city dwelling member of this Chamber and said, "There's a tree in the corner. We'll mark out an area 10 metres by 10 metres and fence it off, and you can no longer go there." Imagine what people would think about that? I bet they would be pretty upset; they would be irate.
Government members laugh at that. They think it is humorous. Imagine tying up their backyard! Use of their backyard is not their livelihood. Farmers' private property is their flesh and blood; it is sustaining their families. But that is what the Government is doing. As I said, I support this bill in principle but it does not go far enough. National parks could be sustaining farmers in time of drought. The Government needs to have a long, hard look at exactly what it is doing in the name of the environment. In conclusion, the new local environment plan template that will be introduced across New South Wales provides for a classification known as biodiversity certification. People on rural land need to be aware that biodiversity certification is coming to a rural property. Just as I referred to Mr Spencer's land being tied up, make no mistake that the new classification will restrict the use of rural land by private property owners across New South Wales.
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Goulburn, the member for Monaro, the member for Castle Hill, the member for Hawkesbury and the member for Coffs Harbour for their contributions to this debate. I note that the heart of the member for Coffs Harbour, who is no longer in the Chamber, was aflutter with this bill. On behalf of the Government I note also the honourable member's passion for fire. The National Parks and Wildlife Service manages more than 650 parks covering 6.5 million hectares on behalf of the people of New South Wales. Many of these parks contain wild landscapes and unique flora and fauna, and are breathtaking in their natural beauty.
As well as protecting places of ecological significance, some parks, such as the Kosciusko National Park, are iconic and contribute to our history and sense of identity. New South Wales parks are established in contemplation of generations to come and they represent some of our most precious public assets. One of the main reasons parks are established is to promote public enjoyment and understanding. For the benefit of the member for Castle Hill, I am advised that New South Wales parks receive approximately 22 million visits each year, making them some of the State's most important tourist destinations.
Being able to enjoy the benefits of parks, and increasing tourism throughout New South Wales, are recognised as important priorities in the State Plan. At the same time, visitation needs to be balanced with the protection of a park's natural and cultural heritage. The leasing and licensing framework established under the National Parks Act is an important tool to manage visitor activities in parks. Without a clear approvals framework it would be difficult to achieve a balance between the different objectives of the Act. Commercial activities, including tourism, currently occur in parks and can greatly improve the park experience. Guided 2428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2007
tours, food vendors and organised adventure activities can all contribute to a person's enjoyment of a park. Commercial services can also stimulate economic activity in rural and regional areas by promoting tourism and local employment.
Commercial activities are allowed in parks on the basis of management principles for sustainable use and enjoyment, and the promotion of public understanding and appreciation. However, the powers to issue licences and franchises for commercial activities vary across different park categories. Unlike national parks and historic sites, there are no express powers in the Act to allow the issue of licences in respect of trades, businesses or occupations, or franchises in regional parks, State conservation areas, karst conservation reserves or Aboriginal areas.
The bill will address this anomaly by specifically allowing the director general to issue licences to carry on a trade, business or occupation within State conservation areas, regional parks, karst conservation reserves and Aboriginal areas. The Minister will also be able to grant franchises for the sale of goods and services in these parks. The amendments will not apply to nature reserves as the management principles for these reserves do not allow high levels of visitor services. The bill will resolve current uncertainty by ensuring a more consistent approach is taken to commercial licensing under the Act.
The bill also seeks to remove unnecessary restrictions on leasing and licensing in certain park categories that are reserved and managed under the Aboriginal ownership provisions of the Act. The inability to grant or renew leases and licences in State conservation areas and regional parks that are managed under part 4A is inconsistent with the management principles for these parks. It is also inconsistent with how other types of parks are managed under part 4A. The bill will allow leases and licences to be granted or renewed in State conservation areas and regional parks reserved under part 4A.
The bill will not give a green light to increasing visitor numbers in parks, nor will it favour organised commercial users such as four-wheel drive activities over passive park users. As I have noted, commercial activities already occur in parks. The amendments simply aim to make it clear that these activities are authorised under the Act. Equally, the amendments will not affect the requirement for all leasing and licensing to be in accordance with the management principles under the Act and the park's plan of management.
A plan of management provides specific direction on what types of activities are allowed in the park. The exhibition process for draft plans of management, which can be extensive, ensures that the plans are developed transparently and in consultation with the public. The amendments will provide direct benefits to boards of management responsible for lands managed under part 4A. The ability to grant leases and licences in part 4A State conservation areas and regional parks will provide income to boards for the management of the park. It may also provide employment opportunities for Aboriginal commercial operators. The amendments will ensure that existing commercial operators and leaseholders are not disadvantaged simply because parks have been reserved under part 4A.
The Government recognises that balancing conservation and sustainable use is a major challenge for park managers. In January 2006 the former Department of Environment and Conservation, now the Department of Environment and Climate Change, launched Living Parks—a Sustainable Visitation Strategy. This strategy provides the framework for managing the sustainable and culturally appropriate use of all parks. The strategy aims to protect and conserve park values, enhance community health and wellbeing, and provide economic benefits for communities. A key tool for the delivery of the living parks strategy is the preparation of branch visitation management plans.
These plans will be implemented in each of the field branches of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to specifically guide local management arrangements. The plans will also determine what recreational uses and facilities are generally appropriate for parks. Another element of the living parks strategy is the development of an efficient commercial operator licensing system. This system aims to improve the regulatory process, and encourage the delivery of products that meet standards of excellence in park management. Commercial activities must operate according to conservation policies and minimise the negative impacts on park values. Where environmental or cultural areas are particularly sensitive, the commercial operator licensing system will limit the maximum number of commercial licences that can be issued.
Parks do not exist in isolation. They are part of local communities and the common property of us all. We need to make sure that visitors can enjoy and appreciate our parks while still protecting their natural and 26 September 2007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2429
cultural features. These amendments will improve commercial visitor services in parks and help make our parks truly wonderful places to visit.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.17 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
I thank both Government and Opposition members who have contributed substantially to the many pieces of legislation debated today.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.19 p.m. until Thursday 27 September 2007 at 10.00 a.m.
______