19638
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Tuesday 15 November 2005 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
CONSUMER CREDIT (NEW SOUTH WALES) AMENDMENT (MAXIMUM ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE) BILL
ROYAL BLIND SOCIETY (MERGER) BILL
STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Ministerial Statement
Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, Treasurer, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.22 p.m.]: In these difficult times of terrorist threats, it is important to reassure the community that the protection of our critical infrastructure continues to be treated as the highest priority. The Government has established a project group to survey our critical infrastructure within the State and to assess risks and upgrade security. The group is surveying key infrastructure in areas including transport, energy and communications. Comprehensive security strategies have been developed for a number of key assets, such as the Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. All NSW Police local area commands maintain high-visibility policing around those sites and work closely with the owner-operators to identify and investigate any suspicious activity.
In October New South Wales participated in the multijurisdictional counter-terrorism exercise known as Mercury 05. This exercise tested the State's critical infrastructure protection and response arrangements around a number of sites. A key focus of the security audit has been to work on transport security and the utilities sector. Security audits and risk assessments are reassessed on a regular basis. Physical improvements, such as security fencing, access control measures and refinement of security procedures, have been implemented at key sites, including Port Botany. Business continuity plans have also been tested. New South Wales has a Cabinet standing committee on counter-terrorism, supporting chief executive officer co-ordination and the police counter-terrorism command.
The work that has taken place is extensive and includes implementation of risk-based regulatory approaches to address threats; new legislation to require rail, bus, ferry and charter vessel operators to be accredited and implement security systems; preparation of contingency plans to enable response to an elevated level of threat; new training for operators and staff in relation to dealing with suspicious items; participation by transport agencies in ongoing exercise programs to test and improve their emergency capability; staff training to ensure appropriate actions in evacuating passengers, securing the affected area, rendering first aid and co- ordination with other emergency authorities; development of emergency response plans up to whole-scale CBD evacuations; and the roll-out of public awareness campaigns across the nation.
Immediately after the London attacks on 7 July, additional operational measures were implemented, including increased security on urban rail networks, increased inspections of buses and ferries, deployment of high-visibility police patrols at major transport nodes, predeployment of bomb squad officers and explosive- detector dogs to reduce response times, and closure of baggage lockers at transport interchanges. I remind members of the House and the community that the Sydney CityRail network has 6,224 closed-circuit television [CCTV] cameras installed at 302 CityRail stations. That is an average of 20 live digital cameras at every station. The Rail Management Centre operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and receives live CCTV coverage from 6,200 cameras. The Government will continue to be vigilant in detecting any potential threats to our security and in working to continually increase the protection of our key infrastructure assets. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19639
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [2.26 p.m.]: As I have told the House before, the Opposition and the Government speak as one in relation to terrorism and counter-terrorism. The Opposition has taken a bipartisan approach to this topic. That bipartisan approach would be assisted if the Premier gave notice of his ministerial statements so that we could join him in welcoming any initiative. I note that he has not done that since becoming Premier.
Mr Andrew Stoner: He is pulling a stunt.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: If he did, we could focus on a bipartisan approach instead of on stunts, as one of my colleagues said. The information presented by the Premier today is very useful to us all, not only to Parliament but also to members of the public who need to understand what plans are put in place to protect infrastructure assets and mass gatherings. I have made the point a number of times before that terrorists have moved from attacking infrastructure to attacking people, causing large numbers of casualties. We need to make sure that we have in place the right protection for mass gatherings and, indeed, evacuation plans. Today there is still a high level of concern in the community about whether appropriate evacuation plans have been put in place. Parliament still needs to do some work to ensure that those plans are in place and are notified to members of the public. In relation to resources generally, we all remain concerned to make sure that front-line services, especially police, have the resources they need and, indeed, the numbers they need. The Opposition has made the point continually in recent times that it is regrettable that over the past two years the Government has reduced police numbers by 611.
[Interruption]
The Deputy Premier seems to be making some point about reducing police numbers, which have gone down by 611 in two years. The Premier should address that as a matter of urgency. The Premier had just indicated that the numbers have gone up. They have not gone up, they have gone down. In 2003 there were 15,164 officers. The latest NSW Police web site shows that those numbers have gone down by 611. That is why the Government did not have the appropriate level of resources last week to conduct the counter-terrorism raids. That is why on Tuesday general duties officers were used to pick up a terrorism suspect. That is why those officers were used without body armour, without bulletproof vests, and that is why, in the end, one officer was shot. The resources were not there to enable them to do the job properly.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: If the Premier wants to talk about resources and having appropriate plans in place, I suggest he look first at the 611 police he has cut in the past two years. Put them back!
VARIATIONS OF PAYMENTS ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS 2005-06
Mr Frank Sartor tabled variations of the payments estimates and appropriations for 2005-06 under section 24 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, flowing from the transfer of functions from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Planning, the Premier's Department, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.
PETITIONS
Gaming Machine Tax
Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood and Mr Andrew Stoner.
Alstonville Bypass
Petition requesting that the Alstonville Bypass be completed by the end of 2006, received from Mr Donald Page.
South Coast Rail Services
Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock. 19640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Pensioner Travel Voucher Booking Fee
Petition requesting the removal of the $10 booking fee on pensioner travel vouchers, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
North-west Rail Link
Petition requesting that the north-west rail be completed by 2010, received from Mr Wayne Merton.
Murwillumbah to Casino Rail Service
Petitions requesting the retention of the CountryLink rail service from Murwillumbah to Casino, received from Mr Neville Newell and Mr Donald Page.
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 Mr Andrew Stoner.
Jervis Bay Marine Park Fishing Competitions
Petition requesting amendment of the zoning policy to preclude fishing competitions, by both spear and line, in the Jervis Bay Marine Park, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Unborn Child Protection
Petition requesting mandatory statistical reporting of abortions, legislative protection of foetuses of 20 weeks gestation, and availability of resources for post-abortion follow-up, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Anti-Discrimination (Religious Tolerance) Legislation
Petition opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Shoalhaven River Water Extraction
Petition opposing the extraction of water from the Shoalhaven River to support Sydney's water supply, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Kurnell Desalination Plant
Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.
Model Farms High School Hall
Petition requesting the provision of a school hall for the Model Farms High School, received from Mr Wayne Merton.
Colo High School Airconditioning
Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all classrooms and the library of Colo High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Lower Macleay High School
Petition requesting commencement of planning for a new high school to meet the educational needs of the Lower Macleay district, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Breast Screening Funding
Petitions requesting funding for BreastScreen NSW, received from Mr Steve Cansdell, Mrs Shelley Hancock, Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Wayne Merton and Mr Andrew Stoner. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19641
Campbell Hospital, Coraki
Petition opposing the closure of inpatient beds and the reduction in emergency department hours of Campbell Hospital, Coraki, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Lismore Base Hospital
Petition requesting that Lismore Base Hospital remains an accredited centre of excellence, received from Mr Thomas George.
Shoalhaven Mental Health Services
Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a dedicated mental health service in the Shoalhaven, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Yass District Hospital
Petition opposing the downgrading of existing services at Yass District Hospital, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
Coffs Harbour Aeromedical Rescue Helicopter Service
Petition requesting that plans for the placement of an aeromedical rescue helicopter service based in Coffs Harbour be fast-tracked, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Kempsey District Hospital
Petition requesting that Kempsey District Hospital be maintained at level 4, and requesting the construction of a new hospital for Kempsey, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Kempsey Water Fluoridation
Petition opposing the addition of fluoride to the Kempsey and district water supply, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Forster Hospital Services
Petition requesting access to hospital services and a public hospital for Forster, received from Mr John Turner.
Kurnell Sandmining
Petition opposing sandmining on the Kurnell Peninsula, received from Mr Barry Collier.
Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme
Petitions objecting to the criteria for country cancer patients to qualify for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, received from Mr Thomas George, Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mr Andrew Stoner.
Recreational Fishing
Petitions opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.
Crown Land Leases
Petition requesting the withdrawal of changes to the rental structure of Crown land leases, particularly enclosed road permits, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson. 19642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, Traffic Conditions
Petition requesting a right turn arrow for traffic travelling west on Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, turning north onto Eastern Valley Way, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.
Naremburn Bike Path
Petition requesting an alternative route to the proposed bike path in the vicinity of Naremburn shops, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.
Grafton Bridge
Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
F6 Corridor Community Use
Petition noting the decision of the Minister for Roads, gazetted in February 2003, to abandon the construction of any freeway or motorway in the F6 corridor, and requesting preservation of the corridor for open space, community use and public transport, received from Mr Barry Collier.
Barton Highway Dual Carriageway Funding
Petition requesting that the Minister for Roads change the Roads and Traffic Authority's priority for Federal AusLink funding for the Barton Highway to allow the construction of a dual carriageway, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
Tumut River Junction Bridge
Petition opposing the indefinite closure of the Tumut River Junction Bridge, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
Old Northern and New Line Roads Strategic Route Development Study
Petition requesting funding for implementation of the Old Northern and New Line roads strategic route development study, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Pacific Highway Upgrade
Petition requesting the construction of a dual carriageway on the Pacific Highway between Nambucca Heads and Macksville with an interim 80 kilometres per hour speed limit, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Shoalhaven City Council Rate Structure
Petition opposing a 27 per cent rate increase proposed by Shoalhaven City Council, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER-GENERAL
Report
Mr Richard Torbay, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled report No. 53/05, entitled "Best Practice Reporting Review", dated November 2005.
Ordered to be printed.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
Mr Allan Shearan, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 14 of 2005", dated 15 November 2005, together with minute extracts regarding "Legislation Review Digest No. 12 of 2005."
Report ordered to be printed. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19643
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
RAYMOND TERRACE PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. Given years of complaints about the antisocial and violent behaviour of thugs in public housing opposite the Sketchley Street preschool, Raymond Terrace, and given that parents were told that shots were fired as target practice near the school last week, will the Minister finally listen to the community and evict the thugs responsible?
Miss CHERIE BURTON: I am aware of this incident and have been briefed by the Department of Housing on the details surrounding the discharging of a firearm outside a block of public housing units in Raymond Terrace several weeks ago. I appreciate that the incident has caused concern among local residents and among parents whose children attend the preschool situated in the same street, but as the incident is still the subject of an investigation by NSW Police it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. However, I will say that the majority of people who live in public housing are good tenants and they have the right to live in safety and comfort.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance. My question was very simple: Will the Minister evict the thugs?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister's reply is totally relevant. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister has the call.
Miss CHERIE BURTON: I make it clear that antisocial behaviour on public housing estates will not be tolerated, as I have said in the House before. I have instructed my department to take a zero tolerance approach to any public housing tenant who destroys public property and commits crimes. Antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated. I have made it clear that I will relocate or, when necessary, evict tenants who persist with antisocial behaviour.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY
Mr PAUL PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the campaign to protect the rights of working families in New South Wales?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member for Coogee for his question and his support for the conditions, wages and allowances that enable working families to pay their bills. I inform the House that the Commonwealth's industrial relations legislation is the most far-reaching attack on those conditions that we have ever seen.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Far from providing protection, the legislation removes the most basic entitlements that would receive award protection. Some of those conditions and entitlements are overtime rates, shift penalties, public holidays, rest breaks, annual leave loading, and travel and food allowances. Those conditions that are protected by a State independent arbiter are gone under the Commonwealth's proposal to come in and dismantle the independent umpire at the State level and then remove protection for those award conditions. The truth of John Howard's proposal is not about work choices but about "signing on the dotted line, take it or leave it!"
For 30 years John Howard has had this dream to launch an attack on the basic conditions and entitlements of Australian workers. Now with control of the Senate he has introduced this 1,000-page legislation, without any debate. Then on comes the fight to dismantle decades of hard-fought working conditions that help families pay bills, such as mortgages, and to balance work and family. They are sent out the door and replaced with a take-it-or-leave-it condition.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order. I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to order. 19644 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What is the position of the State Opposition? Without any hesitation it hands over our nurses, teachers and police to John Howard. He will cut penalty rates and get rid of the reasonable workload protection that nurses have in their award, which helps to retain, protect and recruit them. But that is not one of the five core matters in Howard's legislation, nor is it one of the 16 allowable matters. Out would go workload protection for nurses that will immediately have a serious effect on our ability to retain and recruit more nurses. At a time when this Government is providing record resources to open beds and recruit more nurses in comes Commonwealth legislation that will take that away. The State Opposition hands them over to Canberra under John Howard's legislation.
Not one member of the Opposition has defended in this Chamber the working conditions of the men and women in this State. Not one has uttered one single word of support for families to maintain those protections and living standards. Not one has had one good word to say about our nurses who are struggling to keep their workload conditions in their awards. Not one has supported the death and disability provisions for police in their award. Not one has supported our firefighters and our teachers. When the teachers got a 4 per cent pay increase the Opposition did not utter one word of support.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wollongong will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: For the first time in more than 30 years there has been no industrial disputation as a result of settling a 4 per cent teachers' pay increase, and not one word of support or congratulations has come from the Opposition for teachers. The Opposition has not offered one word of support for nurses, teachers, police and firefighters who joined the ranks of hundreds of thousands of other Australian workers today to fight to keep their conditions, to keep the balance between family and work and protect their pay packets. Three weeks ago the honourable member for Gosford gave notice of a motion of support. At least today we had some clarification of where the Opposition stands. The honourable member for Gosford gave notice of a motion of support of the Howard Government's legislation and he has backed that up today. In the meantime the honourable member for Gosford said to people in his electorate "These IR laws are not really a State matter, they are really a Commonwealth matter."
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order. I call the honourable member for Penrith to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: On the one hand the honourable member for Gosford said it is not really a State issue—protecting nurses, teachers, firefighters—it is a Commonwealth issue. Last week, on the day the State Government announced it would challenge the laws in the High Court, the Leader of the Opposition when asked about his position on the challenge in relation to industrial relations said "I haven't been briefed, and that's a Commonwealth matter."
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: You do not need a briefing from lawyers to stand up for workers. We know that everything possible should be done to protect overtime rates, penalty rates and those things that boost pay packets. When the Government is launching a legal challenge the very minimum the Opposition can do is say, "Damn good idea! I'll stare John Howard down. I'll take a bipartisan approach and stand with the State Government in fighting for workers." Instead, the Opposition has said it is not really a State matter and then the honourable member for Gosford moved a motion to congratulate the Howard Government.
What is the real position? One minute the Opposition congratulates the Commonwealth on the legislation and the next minute says, "It is not really a State matter, it is a Commonwealth matter." Next, the Opposition wants to look at the legislation. At a time when workers right across the country are threatened in this way, the best the Opposition can say is "Let's get a briefing on the legislation. Perhaps we can look at the fine print" and then it says, "Maybe, what if, or could be". The honourable member for Gosford moved a motion and who knows what the motion will be next week. I know that it will never be a motion that says "We stand with workers and their families to protect their pay packets" because the Opposition has never uttered one single word of defence for workers and their families in this place or outside. In this Chamber, the Opposition has never supported improving the conditions and pay claims of nurses and teachers. They have never uttered one single word.
Today hundreds of thousands of workers fought to keep their conditions and collective bargaining, the right to be able to join with their work mates and bargain collectively to get a decent agreement in the workplace 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19645 that maintains their dignity and gives them some extra dollars in their pay packets, and there has been not one word of support from the Opposition. The Opposition can move as many motions as it likes that adopt thousands of positions but the one motion it will never support is the Government that stands for workers and their families.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What will John Howard's legislation do for State Emergency Service [SES] volunteers? Will the Opposition stand up to John Howard and ask, "What protection will you provide for Rural Fire Service [RFS] and SES personnel, volunteers who work, whose awards provide that they get paid leave to attend to SES and RFS duties?" That is protected under award conditions, but does the Commonwealth legislation protect volunteers at work? That is the question members opposite should ask today of John Howard and his industrial relations Minister: What protection is he going to give in the new legislation to award protection that exists for paid leave for SES volunteers to do their training and attend to their duties? They get award protection and paid leave now. But if the awards, the State system and the State umpire all go, what will he do to fight for them? Nothing.
KEMPSEY DISTRICT HOSPITAL MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Why, despite the murder of a patient in 2001, has he refused to answer questions on 18 October and 22 September this year regarding serious breaches of the Mental Health Act at Kempsey?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This matter was responded to by the health Minister. It has also been the subject of reports in the local newspaper of the Leader of The Nationals, so he can read it if he still has an interest.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.
CHILD PROTECTION
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on the New South Wales Government's efforts to improve child protection?
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Honourable members will recall that, following the Wood royal commission, New South Wales was the first State to put in place the most extensive child protection legislation in Australia. Since July 2000 people convicted of a serious sex offence, murder of a child or kidnapping are banned automatically from working with children. New South Wales remains the only State in Australia that has specific legislation to prevent convicted sex offenders from working with children either in a volunteer or paid capacity.
In addition, the Commission for Children and Young People, an independent statutory authority, conducts background checks. Background checks are mandatory for preferred applicants for paid child-related positions, foster carers, and ministers of religion or other members of religious organisations seeking to work in child-related employment. They look at relevant national criminal records, relevant apprehended violence orders and relevant employment proceedings. Since 2000, around one million checks have been conducted. As a result of those checks, almost 370 people have been refused employment on the basis of the risk identified. We have come a long way from the time when the Wood Royal Commission found that allegations were ignored or swept under the carpet, and people with relevant criminal records were able to move freely between positions.
Today I am pleased to confirm that following an independent review of the laws governing the Commission for Children and Young People, the New South Wales Government will introduce a package of improvements. The Government will ensure that certain offenders never work with children: murderers; people convicted of sexual intercourse with a child under 16, and under 18 if they are a coach or teacher; and people convicted of the production of child pornography. These people will never work with children and they will never be able to have their status reviewed. The door is shut on these predators.
Now, for the first time, those convicted of grievous bodily harm will also be banned from working with children. We have conducted a wide-ranging and independent review. The community has spoken and the 19646 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Government has listened. This package will deliver a stronger system to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people in New South Wales. The review showed strong community support for the role of the Children's Commission and for New South Wales' response to improving child protection in the workplace over the last five years.
These changes will further strengthen our approach. They include tightening the ban on people who are prohibited from working with children; introducing lifetime bans on working with children for serious offenders, with no option of review; and increasing measures to promote employer compliance with their legislative responsibilities. We will direct self-employed people whose work brings them into contact with children to display or produce on request a certificate that they are not a prohibited person. We will also reduce red tape to minimise unnecessary duplication of background checks.
With more than one million people volunteering in New South Wales, many of whom work with children, the Government will also investigate new measures for these organisations. The independent review recommended certain categories of volunteers have mandatory background checks. We think this is a good idea and have therefore instructed the commissioner to talk to the affected groups to work out how this can be done. The Commissioner for Children and Young People will consult with volunteer organisations on what practical and commonsense approaches can be implemented. These improvements are in line with community expectations for making environments more child safe and more child friendly. They will give parents and children greater confidence in the services they use. We are strengthening our laws to ensure that anyone who is a known danger to children cannot work in child-related employment. Our initiatives will put New South Wales at the forefront of child-safe, child-friendly workplaces and ensure our safeguards reflect community opinion.
CROSS-CITY TUNNEL CONTRACT
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that on Saturday he publicly called for the operators of the cross-city tunnel to examine the option of reducing the toll, why did his Government sign the contract in the first place? Will he now renegotiate the cross-city tunnel contract to also reclaim public roads?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I made the position clear on Saturday that the company's announcement to extend the toll-free period for another two weeks was welcome, but the company could go further and, having had two transitional periods of concessions, it could, at the end of the two weeks, introduce a permanent arrangement that provides extra incentives for motorists. That was the position on Saturday and it remains unchanged. The company can certainly do that. It is now three weeks with a two-week extension. The company has announced a range of other measures in relation to registration, licensing fees and casual user charges. At the conclusion of the two weeks it can build further goodwill and provide extra incentives for motorists by introducing a permanent arrangement.
PARLIAMENTARY SUPERANNUATION SCHEME REFORM
Mr PAUL McLEAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government doing to reform New South Wales parliamentary superannuation?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government will today introduce legislation to establish a new parliamentary superannuation scheme to take effect from the next State election in March 2007. It honours the commitment made by the former Premier in February 2004 to reform the parliamentary superannuation scheme by establishing a new government contribution scheme for parliamentarians who enter Parliament at or after the next election. Cabinet has approved the new superannuation arrangements and, as required under legislation, the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal recently certified that the changes are warranted.
The new superannuation arrangements will be similar to those introduced by the Federal Government for all new parliamentarians who entered the Parliament after the Federal general election in October 2004. Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory have also recently passed legislation establishing new parliamentary superannuation arrangements to apply from their next parliamentary vacancies. South Australia will also apply new arrangements from the next general election, in 2006. Western Australia and Tasmania had earlier established accumulation schemes for their parliamentarians.
The existing parliamentary superannuation scheme will be closed to parliamentarians who are elected on or after March 2007, including former members who re-enter Parliament at that election. Sitting members of 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19647
Parliament will not be affected by the change. New parliamentarians will have the same superannuation arrangements that apply to employees who joined the New South Wales public sector employees after December 1992. The legislation will require the Government to pay contributions on behalf of future members of Parliament into First State Super, which covers the majority of New South Wales public sector employees, unless a member asks for contributions to be paid into another fund.
Future members of Parliament will have the same choice of superannuation fund as public sector employees. The community expects parliamentarians to be remunerated in an open manner, which is consistent with general community standards. No change to superannuation has applied retrospectively. Accordingly, this system will apply to future members of Parliament who are elected at and beyond the March 2007 election, which is consistent with the Commonwealth's approach. The legislation to be introduced by the Government will reform parliamentary superannuation entitlements, so that they will be in line with those available to most New South Wales public sector employees and the community at large.
GREATER SOUTHERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given that the Greater Southern Area Health Service currently owes a Goulburn obstetrician more than $80,000 in fees that have been overdue for some three months and that other Goulburn general practitioners have not been paid for up to two months, why is he failing to fund public health in Goulburn properly?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The area health service referred to by the honourable member is receiving assistance with its administrative arrangements. This is not a budgetary issue but an ongoing management issue in the Greater Southern Area Health Service. Recently, the Minister for Health appointed an auditor to assist the area health service to manage its accounts. Of course it should pay the surgeons and professionals at Goulburn in a timely manner, which is why the Minister for Health recently announced the appointment of an auditor to assist the health service in the management of its accounts.
EASTERN SUBURBS AND ILLAWARRA RAIL LINES TIMETABLE
Mr KEVIN GREENE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on improving rail reliability of the eastern suburbs and Illawarra lines?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am pleased to update the House about the first eight weeks of the new train timetable—introduced on 4 September—which has made a huge difference to the travelling public of New South Wales, who deserve a full report on its performance in the past two months. Recently, major progress has been made in developing the new timetable for the eastern suburbs, Illawarra and South Coast lines of our RailCorp network. With cautious optimism I report on the increased reliability since the introduction of the new timetable on 4 September. I say "cautious" because the true challenge for any mass transit system is the delivery of safe and reliable on-time running figures every peak—every a.m. and every p.m. peak, week in week out, and month in month out. In the long run that is how to judge the success of a rail timetable. One week, one month does not make it—it is how it is delivered over several months. Although CityRail commuters have experienced two months of improved reliability, we have to work harder than ever to consolidate those gains.
Early gains included marked improvements in on-time running. In October 2005 more than 92 per cent of peak services ran on time, compared with October 2004 when only 54 per cent of services ran on time. Similarly, 93 per cent of peak services ran on time in September this year—the first four weeks of the new timetable—compared with 66 per cent of on-time services in September 2004. The months of last year were dark days for CityRail commuters, but I am optimistic that we have turned the corner. The improvement in on- time running on individual lines is worth considering. For example, constituents of my parliamentary colleagues in Bankstown, Auburn, Strathfield, Canterbury, Lakemba and Marrickville experienced a jump in on-time running under the new timetable. Last month 95 per cent of peak trains on the Bankstown line ran on time, compared with 46 per cent in October last year. On the inner-western line 94 per cent of services ran on time last month, which is a 53 per cent jump in the 41 per cent of trains that ran on time last October. That is a huge improvement in on-time running and means that those who took millions of trips were able to get to work on time and home to their families on time in the p.m. peak.
The real test of the effectiveness of the timetable is in the p.m. peak particularly, when workers want to get home to their families, attend parents and citizens meetings, go to soccer practice and have a meal with their 19648 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 families. Reliability of on-time running in the p.m. peak is absolutely critical. Although on-time running is important, it is not the only measure of improved reliability. The number of cancellations and the number of stations skipped—interruptions that cause great angst to commuters—have dropped. Earlier this year when I became Minister for Transport, skipping stations and cancelling services caused the greatest anger. Commuters would get onto a late-running service only to discover that their station would be skipped—something they did not know would happen until they got onto the train. Even though the train may have run on time, it skipped stations to ensure that it ran to the timetable. Nothing is more aggravating when people are trying to get home to their families.
I can report that the number of stations skipped and the number of services cancelled have fallen dramatically. Commuters on the eastern suburbs, Illawarra and South Coast lines are yet to experience the same reliability gains as those on the rest of the CityRail network, mainly due to the fact that their services are still operating under the old timetable. On 4 September we did not introduce the new timetable on the eastern suburbs, Illawarra or South Coast lines for a number of reasons, the main being capital works. Notwithstanding that, I am advised that 100 per cent of trains on those lines ran on time in this morning's peak—on the old timetable. The new timetable will improve the consistency of reliability, and make these results the rule rather than the exception.
Today I can announce that the new timetable for the eastern suburbs, Illawarra and South Coast lines will be introduced on Sunday 28 May 2006, which is the date by which the $55 million Bondi Junction turnback—a most important piece of rail infrastructure that will increase capacity on the line and enable us to run more services from the South Coast into the central business district—will be completed. Currently the number of services is limited because we cannot get them into Bondi Junction and out. The Bondi Junction turnback will enable us to move services more quickly at the city end of that line which, in turn, will enable us to increase capacity on that line.
The introduction date of 28 May 2006 falls after the Easter school holidays, provides the necessary lead time to prepare for its introduction and provides time to consult with the Bus and Coach Association, the Ministry of Transport and the bus companies. Most importantly, we have to give bus companies in the southern parts of Sydney, the South Coast and the Illawarra some notice of the new timetable because they will have to change their connecting services to ensure that bus services arrive at train stations at the appropriate time. By having the timetable commence on 28 May next year, it provides time for bus companies to reschedule their services.
The draft timetable for these lines was recently released for public comment. More than 400 submissions were received and RailCorp is now addressing feedback ahead of finalising the timetable. As part of that consultation process, RailCorp also wrote to over 400 stakeholder groups, including commuter groups in the South Coast and the Illawarra, disability groups, schools, TAFE colleges, universities, councils and hospitals. RailCorp also uploaded the draft timetable onto the CityRail web site and distributed brochures outlining the changes to the timetable, including a feedback form, to commuters at stations along the affected lines. Commuters will also be able to pick up a draft timetable from RailCorp stations on the South Coast line, and many people already have done so. In reviewing the feedback, which we encouraged, and the feasibility of making the requested changes, over the coming weeks RailCorp will consider the impact that suggested changes will have on overall train operations and the impact that changes will have on other commuters.
As honourable members may imagine, the design of any timetable is a very complex and lengthy process. It is not always possible to deliver the service that each individual commuter would like. Designing a timetable is about maximising the good for most commuters. We have circulated the draft timetable and have encouraged commuters to have their say. That has happened, and RailCorp will go through the detail of those submissions to see what changes can be made to the draft timetable to further improve it for people who have made valuable suggestions. I am able to report that after the general draft timetable was distributed at the end of last year for the remainder of the CityRail network, quite a number of significant changes were made to the timetable that was introduced on 4 September. Accordingly there will be changes to the draft timetable for the South Coast line arising from the consultation process.
RailCorp advises me that some preliminary adjustments have already been made to that draft based on the feedback from the Commuter Council, and also the staff of RailCorp—who, after all, have great expertise in running a timetable. For example, one of the changes to the draft timetable has been the inclusion of additional stops at the North Wollongong station. I am advised that timetable feedback and subsequent changes that have been made to the draft timetable will be available on the CityRail web site early next year. I draw the attention 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19649 of honourable members whose electorates are traversed by that line and members of their communities that they will be able to examine the draft timetable early next year before its introduction on 28 May. I will also keep the House informed of the timetable's development as well as the steady improvements that I have outlined today.
CityRail commuters have shown great patience with our rail system. I place on the record my thanks to them for that. They have put up with a lot. Things are getting better, but they needed to. We could not tolerate a government service such as rail providing the level of service that was being provided last year. A lot of work has gone into improving that situation. As the Minister for Transport, I will not be satisfied until we deliver the improvements, week in, week out, month in, month out. We always have to struggle to ensure that we maintain on-time running at the highest level. Any rail system will have a problem during storm conditions, when there are problems with police activity, when there is sickness among commuters, when vandalism occurs as well as during a whole range of other difficulties, but each day we have to constantly fight to make sure that on-time running figures are maintained at the highest level. In conclusion, I acknowledge and thank the fantastic CityRail staff, especially train crews and station staff, for their daily efforts in ensuring that the rail service runs smoothly.
GREATER SOUTHERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will he guarantee that the Greater Southern Area Health Service will pay all debts over 45 days before the end of this month, or will local doctors and small businesses be forced to carry these crippling debts over the Christmas period?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As I mentioned to the honourable member for Burrinjuck, as far as the management of the creditors and the management of the accounts of the Greater Southern Area Health Service are concerned, the current situation is unacceptable. That is why a number of measures have been taken to improve the management of the area health service's accounts and its financial performance. The appointment of an auditor to assist the area health service in managing its affairs is precisely designed to ensure that people are getting paid. I would have thought that would be a clear implication from taking action to appoint the auditor.
The area health service has had a plan to deal with its current financial issues, including the efficiency of its administration and the achievement of those efficiencies in administrative areas, not clinical areas. That is a very clear direction that the area health service is moving in to deal with the management of its accounts and to do so in a way that improves the efficiency of its administration, not in a way that adversely affects front-line clinical services. As I mentioned to the honourable member for Burrinjuck, an auditor has been appointed to help the area health service through these difficulties and assist in managing the issues so that the payment of creditors and the financial position of the area health service can improve, and so that sustained improvement will be achieved in the way in which the area health service deals with creditors and its financial accounts.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: I ask a supplementary question. Given the Premier's answer, what does he have to say to the milk vendor who has been owed $19,000 since July?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wagga Wagga has not specifically referred to any part of the Premier's reply. That is not a supplementary question.
TWEED SHIRE COUNCIL INQUIRY
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Local Government.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Tweed to reread his question. I cannot hear it.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Local Government.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order. 19650 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: What is the latest information on State Government efforts to restore public confidence in local government in New South Wales and related matters?
Mr KERRY HICKEY: I thank the honourable member for Tweed for his great question. Quite frankly, it is great to see a local member looking after his electorate. As members would be aware, Tweed Shire Council was dismissed on 25 May this year following the release of the report on the first public inquiry by Professor Maurice Daly and its referral to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. Investigations are ongoing and further material has been forwarded to ICAC as a result of matters raised in the second report that has been produced by Professor Daly.
The actions and motivations of the dismissed councillors have damaged public confidence in local government, both within and outside the Tweed shire area. Remember the bad old days of North Coast land deals, when we spawned our own version of the white shoe brigade to rival the grubbiest that the Gold Coast could offer—the days when ICAC investigators were issued with subpoenas, broad-brimmed hats and block-out as they scoured the highways and byways of the North Coast, revealing scandal after scandal, created by the National Party and its dodgy cohorts?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: It is not all ancient history. Whenever the opportunity presents itself to avoid making a full disclosure, to cut a corner, or to make a secret land deal, for some people the temptation is overwhelming. Honourable members would remember Don Beck, the former National Party member for Murwillumbah, where some of the worst excesses were planned. The ICAC concluded that Don Beck had played a key role in the corrupt attempt to have the Ocean Blue site at Fingal rezoned. The ICAC Report on Investigation into North Coast Land Development stated, at pages 642-643:
I find there is evidence warranting consideration of the prosecution of Mr Beck for two offences of common law bribery. They arise respectively from the $25,000 donation to the National Party made by Ocean Blue Club Resorts in May 1988, and the 410,000 donation made by Dr Munro …
I can report that they are at it again! You only have to take your eyes off them for five minutes and they are off into the basement, dusting off the old plans, casting around for backers and conveniently bypassing the disclosure laws that were put in place to make sure that elected councillors fully disclose their pecuniary interests.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I just cannot hear. I do not know whether the Minister is talking about Liverpool council, Rockdale council, Strathfield council, or another Labor-dominated corrupt council.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
Mr Brad Hazzard: What is he talking about? Can he clarify it for us?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time. The Chair had no difficulty hearing the Minister for Local Government. His remarks had nothing to do with what was suggested by the honourable member for Wakehurst.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: I can start again for the benefit of the Chamber.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the Minister not to start again, and I advise the honourable member for Wakehurst to take his glass of water and resume his seat.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: Here they are, casting around for backers, conveniently bypassing disclosure laws that were put in place to make sure that elected councillors fully disclose their pecuniary interests. Who is the latest exponent? None other than the Queen of the Coast, Lynne Beck, sacked councillor and former Mayor of Tweed Shire Council, former National Party pre-selection candidate for the Tweed, and National Party heavyweight. She is the wife of the former member for Murwillumbah, Don Beck. As stated in the Australian on 8 November 2005 and the Tweed Heads Daily News on 9 November 2005:
Former Tweed Mayor Lynne Beck is at the centre of a new development row over an alleged $5 million windfall if a major rezoning went ahead.
Cr Beck, sacked with other Tweed Shire councillors in May, allegedly stood to share in the money with her two sisters who live locally. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19651
The deal was allegedly on the proviso that family farmland at Cudgen was rezoned to allow a retail corporate giant … to build a shopping centre and residential estate.
Councillor Beck's Cudgen property was zoned "agricultural protection". The Australian reported on 8 November that mortgage documents obtained by it disclosed that Councillor Beck and her two sisters were promised an extra $5 million if the zonings were changed to retail and residential. If that rezoning did not happen what then? Councillor Beck and her sisters would miss out on their $5 million windfall! For the information of the House, I advise that Cudgen is a stone's throw from Fingal Head, the site of the Ocean Blue development and the subject of an ICAC investigation. It is precisely to avoid cases like this that every councillor in New South Wales is required to declare his or her pecuniary interests. If we did not have such laws, we would never know, without the most detailed searches, whether councillors were making a decision or voting on a proposal from which they stood to gain and make a profit. What was Councillor Beck's answer when asked why she did not declare her interests in the land?
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: The same answer that Eddie Obeid gave when not disclosing his interests in all those companies.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will state his point of order or resume his seat.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: What did you do? What did anyone opposite do? Nothing.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. I call him to order for the second time.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: Councillor Beck's answer was, "I did check it out and I was told you have to declare it once a year." The council was sacked in May this year, so, according to Councillor Beck, "I was sacked, so I have no conflict of interest." The really disturbing aspect to the revelation is that it is precisely the sort of deception that the National Party was infamous for along the North Coast.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: This is a clear abuse of parliamentary privilege. The Minister is dropping a bucket on people who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this place. You are a disgrace.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: The Leader of The Nationals is a disgrace.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is concerned about members of the public being referred to in the way the Minister is referring to a particular person. I ask him to resume his reply and to bring it to a speedy conclusion.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: Is the Minister prepared to make the same statements outside the cowards' castle, on the steps of the House?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lachlan has been here long enough to know better than to behave in that way.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: My warning to the people of New South Wales is this: Given the opportunity, people associated with the other side will seize any opportunity to return to the old ways.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: The Government shares community concerns that Councillor Beck may have sidestepped local government pecuniary interest report laws. Accordingly—
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The Minister said that these matters have been referred to the ICAC. Last week we heard in relation to the cross-city tunnel the Premier saying that these matters had been appropriately addressed by the ICAC, and he refused to answer.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: Sit down.
Mr Andrew Stoner: You have double standards. 19652 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. I do not uphold the point. However, I remind the Minister of my earlier ruling and my concerns about members of Parliament raising matters involving members of the public. I again ask the Minister to bring this reply to a speedy conclusion.
Mr KERRY HICKEY: Accordingly, the Government is urgently reviewing whether the reporting laws require amendment to ensure that all appropriate disclosures are made. Amendments, if required, will ensure that the Local Government Pecuniary Interest Register must be updated as soon as the pecuniary interest is acquired. Any new legislation introduced into this House should be known as the Lynne Beck Act. I thank the House for its attention.
Mr George Souris: Point of order: The Minister was clearly flouting your ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is nothing before the House. There is no point of order. The Minister has concluded his answer.
Questions without notice concluded.
CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
Federal Government Industrial Relations Policy
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [3.40 p.m.]: Honourable members would be aware that last week the worst piece of legislation was introduced in the Federal Parliament. That legislation is the biggest attack on the working conditions of Australian families in the history of this country. It is urgent that we discuss this matter now before that legislation goes through both Houses of the Federal Parliament and while a Senate inquiry is being conducted to discuss the matter. When the 70-odd pages of legislation were introduced in Federal Parliament last week, the Government guillotined Opposition members and would not allow them to speak in debate on a most important matter.
Today hundreds of thousands of people across this State rallied against this legislation. I am proud to state that I was one of those people in Martin Place who rallied against the legislation but I did not see any Opposition members there. It is urgent that we send a message to working families in Australia—in New South Wales and in country New South Wales in particular—that this is the time for action. We must urgently send a message to the Prime Minister and his cohorts in Canberra that they cannot trample on Australians in this way.
We need some commitment from Opposition members that they will stand with us, united, to protect the working people of New South Wales. We must bring this matter to the attention of the public and send the strongest possible message to Canberra. Government members are aware of the urgency of this motion but there are some long faces opposite. Opposition members are deeply embarrassed about this issue. It will be interesting to see what contribution they make in this debate. It is urgent that this matter is debated today.
Desalination Plant Proposal
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [3.42 p.m.]: This matter is urgent because of the long list of concerns people in the Sutherland shire have about the desalination plant. We have previously had an opportunity to discuss the Federal Government's industrial relations legislation and we will have other opportunities to do so. However, this is the only opportunity we have to consider environmental concerns such as greenhouse gases, brine wastewater destroying our fragile marine ecosystem and the destruction that intake pipes will cause to our environment. This motion is urgent because it deals with environmental issues relating to the Kurnell site. In 2002 former planning Minister Dr Refshauge suspended development in the Kurnell area and said:
This will ensure, once and for all, that development is not allowed to harm environmental and social values of this important area.
Kurnell is the birthplace of modern Australia. If the local environment is so important to Labor why did Sydney Water refuse to release 44 documents on environmental assessments and impacts identified in a freedom of information request from Sutherland council? Minister Sartor, who is attempting to interject, should say what he has to say in debate. He and shire members of Parliament should vote for this motion. This matter is urgent because Premier Morris Iemma told Alan Jones he wanted open government while welding shut the doors and windows of Governor Macquarie Tower. If Labor cared about the Sutherland shire why did former planning Minister Craig Knowles state in July this year: 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19653
No-one lives in this area. This is an oil refinery, a carbon factory down the road, a brick pit across the road... if it is a desirable place to live, they can have it. But I would suggest you would not get many takers.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The honourable member, who is obviously canvassing the issue, is referring occasionally to the fact that this matter is urgent to confuse Government members. The honourable member should be asked to state why his motion is urgent.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Cronulla that he must establish why his motion should be given priority. He should not debate the substance of the motion.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: These are substantial matters that I would refer to if this matter were debated. This matter is urgent because Labor has not consulted with or does not care about the Sutherland shire. We want to be able to talk about these concerns and consult with members of the community. Other areas of concern that would be addressed in debate include the aesthetics of the plan and its effect on local residents, and the cultural and heritage concerns of local Aboriginals. Honourable members would be aware that this was Captain Cook's first landing site. These matters should be addressed in debate.
We need an explanation of Bob Carr's Damascus-like conversion to desalination, given that in early 2004 he stated that desalination was "bottled electricity". This matter is urgent because in October 2004 the Metropolitan Water Plan announced a feasibility study on desalination. The former Premier admitted he had done a backflip. On 21 July this year the former Premier said that expressions of interest would be called for the desalination plant. On his Dubai junket, just before he fled Labor's sinking ship, he had the arrogance to announce from Dubai, which is half a world away, that Kurnell was the site for the desalination plant. The former Premier then fled Labor's sinking ship before taking up a position with Macquarie Bank early in October this year.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: That attack on the former Premier has nothing to do with this urgency debate. Once again I ask you to remind the honourable member for Cronulla that he has to establish the urgency of his motion and not defame the former Premier.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was a member of this Chamber with the former Premier for a long time. This Chamber is known for its robust debate, and I am sure the former Premier was well up to the sorts of comments being made by the honourable member for Cronulla. However, he should be establishing reasons why his motion should have priority, not debating the substance of the motion.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: If the former Premier were here today he would be asking where the honourable member for Miranda was. [Time expired].
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Bathurst be proceeded with—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 50
Mr Amery Mr Gaudry Mrs Paluzzano Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Mr Bartlett Mr Greene Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Ms Hay Ms Saliba Mr Black Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Ms Burney Mr Hunter Mr Shearan Miss Burton Ms Judge Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Ms Keneally Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Mr Lynch Mr Torbay Mr Collier Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Daley Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Morris Tellers, Mrs Fardell Mr Newell Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin 19654 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Noes, 31
Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Merton Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Ms Moore Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Oakeshott Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Pringle Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr George Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Maguire
Pairs
Ms Allan Mr Armstrong Mr Brown Mr Hazzard Mr Price Mr Humpherson
Question resolved in the affirmative.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Urgent Motion: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Frank Sartor agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow for two additional speakers to speak on the motion for urgent consideration, for five minutes each.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY
Urgent Motion
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [3.56 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the significant number of workers from country New South Wales who have travelled to Sydney today to take part in the national day of action against the Howard Government's proposed industrial relations changes;
(2) notes the debilitating impact the Howard Government's proposed industrial relations legislation will have on families in rural and regional New South Wales;
(3) calls on the New South Wales Coalition to declare its position in relation to the Howard Government's proposed industrial relations changes; and
(4) congratulates the State Government on continuing its fight to protect New South Wales workers by challenging John Howard's draconian legislation in the High Court.
History will view this period in Australian political life as a return to the Dark Ages—simply to satisfy the Prime Minister's ideological bent. I am particularly concerned about the impact that the industrial relations changes will have on country areas of New South Wales. The Federal Government talks about work choices, but there is no choice at all. We have witnessed the hypocrisy of Coalition members on this issue. The new Leader of the Opposition has said, "This is a Federal issue; I do not have to get involved". But Coalition members are dead against anything that helps working people and their families.
It is interesting to note that Federal Coalition members of Parliament who represent rural and regional electorates as well as State Coalition members are running away from debating this issue. When challenged to a public debate by the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, Coalition members representing the Federal electorates of Cowper, Page, Dobell, Robertson, Paterson and Eden-Monaro were unwilling to defend publicly this unfair and divisive legislation. They do not want to defend the indefensible. The excuse offered by the Federal member for Paterson was a classic. Bob Baldwin told Radio 2RE in Taree that it was too late to 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19655 debate the legislation "because it's already been through the House of Representatives"—sorry, it is too late. Mr Baldwin would have voted to gag and guillotine debate on the legislation in the House of Representatives. He made his little speech in Federal Parliament against the working class but the Howard Government prevented 20 Labor members from speaking in that debate.
Although the industrial relations legislation had been talked about for months, the Federal Government dropped the 750-odd page bill on the House of Representatives last Wednesday. There was no time for proper analysis because the Prime Minister whipped it through the House—supposedly because this legislation is needed in order to keep the Australian economic miracle going. I point out to the Prime Minister and his cohorts that the Australian economic miracle—if that is what he wants to call it—has occurred on the back of a brilliant industrial relations system that has served this country well and on the backs of the hard work of the men and women, the workers, of Australia.
The plans for a single national industrial relations system also pose serious health and safety concerns. Public holidays, penalty rates, working hours and other entitlements, including meal breaks, are all up for grabs. Without those breaks from work, workers will be more fatigued, and there will be a greater chance of incidents and injuries to themselves and others. The status of occupational health and safety workers compensation related protections in the Industrial Relations Act 1996 are now unclear. The rights and remedies available to employees who are dismissed or victimised because they made a health and safety complaint under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 may not be preserved. The definition of "industrial action" under the bill will create a significant disincentive for employees to voice health and safety complaints. An employee will need to prove that actions based on health and safety concerns were made on reasonable grounds. If not proved, the actions may constitute industrial action under the bill.
Country workers and businesses will be among the most threatened by John Howard's new workplace relations law. The legislation was dumped into Federal Parliament last Wednesday, with very little consultation and no opportunity for detailed appraisal. New South Wales is committed to challenging that unfair and divisive legislation in the High Court. I am proud to stand behind the Premier in his unwavering commitment to that end. He has made that commitment publicly, together with other State Labor Premiers. It was in rural and regional Australia that the great traditions of workers solidarity and industrial progress were formed. The struggles for workers' rights, job security, decent pay and working conditions are part of Labor's history—something that is lost on the Opposition in this Chamber. Many of those battles were fought in rural Australia. The great Australian Labor Party that members of the Government represent had its foundations under a tree in outback Queensland.
The battles were fought by shearers, miners and farm workers, who laid the foundations of a decent and fair system of industrial relations in this country that has stood the test of time. Members of the Government will not surrender those rights at the wish of John Howard. Remember what his changes will mean for Australian workers: no independent umpire in wage disputes; hand-picked bureaucrats deciding the minimum wage in some organisation called the Fair Wage Commission— honourable members should bear in mind that in the past 10 years the Howard Government has opposed every minimum wage; 99 per cent of employers are able to dismiss staff at will; individual contracts would remove the hard-won entitlements and protections on which Australian workers and their families have relied for generations. It will be a sign-it-or-else environment for working people, and in the country, where there are often fewer job opportunities, what choice will workers have? There will be no independent umpire, no award safety net, and the threat of instant dismissal.
We know that if the Coalition had its way the minimum wage would already be $50 per week less than it is now. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the Australian people will reject the Howard Government's new industrial laws. Let Country Labor members join with the rest of their colleagues in saying, with a very strong voice, "This is not on". Another thing that is under attack is that evil thing called collective bargaining. The unions are under attack. We know that Costello made his name in Parliament by attacking unions. Collective bargaining is gone, so far as they are concerned. Workers will not have the right to collectively bargain. That wonderful periodical the Oberon Review, on 3 November published the headline: Boswell backs collective bargaining bill. Boswell is The Nationals senator from Queensland, one of the pumpkin-shaped members of The Nationals that we have become used to in this House. The article states:
Leader of The Nationals in the Senate, Ron Boswell, confirmed in the Senate today that he would support the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005, which will provide farmers and small businesses with a new, simpler way to collectively bargain. 19656 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
That is what the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and that anonymous Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in the Federal Parliament want to get rid of. Individual workers will have to sit opposite the boss, and it will be a matter of, "Take it or leave it." Today the Leader of The Nationals put his foot in his mouth when he asked the Premier about emergency workers. It would appear that State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service workers—we are talking about volunteers—who now have certain rights for paid leave for training and such will be left up in the air. There is every chance that those entitlements will go by the board. The Opposition has not followed this legislation through. It is not concerned. Once again it is union bashing.
Mr Chris Hartcher: Oh, no!
Mr GERARD MARTIN: The honourable member for Gosford is the greatest union basher in this House. That is how he gets his kicks. If the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] did not exist, he would have been consigned somewhere else ages ago. The dreaded CFMEU—of which I am a member—has kept him alive. This legislation is an unmitigated attack on the rights of the working people of Australia. The people in my electorate, and those with whom I have mixed today, are not only what the Opposition would refer to as grubby blue-collar workers who support the Labor Party; they are retirees, superannuants, and business people—people right across the spectrum of our community—who say that this is bad legislation, it is draconian legislation, and it has no place in our culture, which believes in a fair go. That is not what the working people of Australia will get from the Federal Government. We have to stand up and fight to the death, and we will do so. [Time expired.]
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.06 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "House" with a view to inserting instead:
"(1) congratulates the nine million workers who did not participate in the so-called day of action and put their employment duty ahead of the posturing of the Australian Council of Trade Unions;
(2) congratulates the 85 per cent of private sector employees who have chosen not to join a trade union;
(3) calls upon the State Government and the trade union movement to abandon their nineteenth century industrial relations views and support twenty-first century progressive reform; and
(4) calls upon the trade union movement to end its political activities, including its funding of the Australian Labor Party, and act on behalf of its members in industrial matters only."
It is clear that this is the last gasp of what happened under the tree back in 1891. As the numbers continue to plummet, and the Australian Labor Party [ALP] and the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] look around, all they see ahead is despair. There is no future, there is only a past. We hear about the past all the time because there is no future at all, and indeed there is not even much of a present. What does the present offer? It offers the Liberal Coalition Government in Canberra, which is determined to do what the ALP pledged to do in 1921. In 1921 at the Hobart conference of the ALP it adopted a platform for a national industrial relations system. That was 1921-22. Now, 83 years later, it is a Liberal Government that is enacting Labor Party policy, and the ALP is screaming. This is the centralist party, the party that believes in the abolition of the States. This is the party that is committed to one single industrial relations system, and as soon as it is given what it wants, it squeals. No child who is disappointed with their toys at Christmas could be as bad as the ALP. The Liberals are giving it what it passed in 1922.
Do we get any gratitude from the honourable member for Bathurst? He made the most ungrateful speech I have heard for many years. John Howard gave him everything he signed up for and he makes nasty personal criticisms. John Howard and the Liberal Government have delivered the highest employment rates and the lowest industrial disputation since the 1980s. Real wages have increased by 14 per cent over and above the consumer price index since 1996. Workers are getting more jobs and more pay. What are the workers doing? The workers are responding by saying, "We don't need to join a union." Union membership in the private sector has plunged to 15 per cent.
Then we have to take out the conscripts, those poor unfortunates who work on building sites and are forced into the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Engineering Union. "No ticket, no start" is everywhere. As the honourable member for Bathurst said, you cannot go to a job site in Sydney without seeing "No ticket, no start." Then we have to take out the poor unfortunates in Coles and Woolworth's who have to join the Shop Assistants Union before they can get a job. Those figures would show that tens of thousands in the private sector are conscripted into the trade union system. The public sector is the only sector where the trade unions do well—nowhere else! Even in the public sector, trade union membership has dropped by 50 per cent. More than half of public servants have chosen not to be members of a trade union. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19657
Who does the trade union movement represent now? It represents essentially a group of union bosses hanging onto their bureaucratic structure, their jobs, and their career paths in the Australian Labor Party. When Peter Beattie made extensive reforms in Queensland and sacked Mike Kaiser, among others, one of the things he discovered was that various unions had been inflating their memberships to increase the size of their delegation to the Australian Labor Party conference. Union membership is not even 15 per cent of workers. Take out the conscripts and the inflated numbers and one would be lucky to get a figure of between 7 per cent and 8 per cent of private sector employees who are voluntary members of trade unions in this State. That is not necessarily a criticism of trade unions; it is a vote of confidence in the industrial relations system under the Howard Government.
Those people are saying, "We don't need to be members of a union; we're going to get good money, we're going to get plenty of opportunities for jobs and the union can do nothing for us." What do most unions do for their members other than organise days of action, which more than 9 million workers—which is more than 95 per cent, if not 98 per cent, of workers—declined to take part in? If ever a slogan was proved true today it is "the workers united shall never be defeated", because the workers decided they were not going to go on strike. They decided the day of action was a joke. The only effect of the day of action was to annoy, irritate and anger motorists in this State, whose traffic system was thrown into chaos by the actions of Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] employees who refused to put traffic markers in the correct place for peak hour. What will be the result on the television news tonight? Viewers will see traffic chaos. Who do the people in those stalled cars blame for the traffic chaos? They blame the Labor Party.
Mr Grant McBride: Point of order: Five and a half thousand people attended stop-work meetings on the Central Coast today—2,000 at the Central Coast Leagues Club. There were 1,500 in the main auditorium and 500 in the other auditorium. Five hundred people marched in the streets. I made the point to those people that this is non-political.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The Minister may contribute to the debate at the appropriate time.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I welcome the contribution by the Minister for the Central Coast. He has just proved my argument. In Gosford, a city of 150,000 people, 2,000 attended. Well said, Minister! He is secretly on my side. It used to be a secret, but the Minister has now come out and said, "Chris, I will give you the figures." I did not have the figures.
Mr Grant McBride: Point of order: I have been totally misrepresented.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The Minister will resume his seat.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I appreciated it, Minister. His contribution was extremely helpful because it proved exactly the point I am making, which is how unrepresentative the union movement is of the workers of this State. The honourable member for Lane Cove has pointed out that the numbers are nothing like those involved in the clubs protest and nothing like the tens of thousands of commuters from the Central Coast who protest each day about the state of their trains. They are nothing like the nearly one million motorists who were stuck in their cars this morning, sometimes for hours. The honourable member for South Coast pointed out that the journey here took her four and a half hours because of the massive chaos caused by the RTA. Tonight on television viewers will hear driver after driver, when interviewed, blaming Labor. Labor has consistently let down the workers of this State and the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast is pursuing policies that will cost thousands of club employees their jobs. This man is the Minister against the Central Coast, the Minister against jobs, the Minister against the workers. The trade union movement has failed the workers and the workers have abandoned it. The only future for trade unions is to abandon the Labor Party. [Time expired.]
Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [4.16 p.m.]: I am delighted to join the honourable member for Bathurst in this debate. Members will know I have made a number of private member's statements about the Boeing workers who are camped outside the gates at the Williamtown RAAF base. They are employed under the current system—not to mention what is proposed—and they have been outside those gates for six months. It is absolutely outrageous that those workers find themselves in that situation in this day and age. The Boeing workers tell me that if the proposed workplace changes are passed, they will be the first generation of Australians in more than 100 years who will hand on to their children and grandchildren a worse set of working conditions than they faced. They are so dug in on this issue that they are not prepared to do that. 19658 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
For the first time in 100 years, the Federal arbitration system will be gutted. The workers at Boeing cannot get to the arbitration system in Canberra; they do not have the right to go to arbitration. They are allowed to go to the arbitration commission only if Boeing agrees. If Boeing does not agree, they cannot do so. When 18,500 Boeing workers were on strike in America recently, their bosses spoke to the unions and came to an enterprise bargaining agreement, and the dispute was resolved. We have a worse situation in Australia than that in America. America now has a homeless working class. The hundreds of thousands of people who protested today—representing their families, their children and grandchildren—are concerned about what is happening in industrial relations. They are not the only ones. I refer to an article in the Catholic Weekly of 13 November, which everyone received a copy of today. The article states:
Job security is a fundamental part of promoting justice and dignity within the workplace and ensuring the security of families.
These industrial relations reforms risk the right to sue for unfair dismissal and threaten job security. Today I received a fax from the Tomaree Education Centre that was sent to Mr Howard. It states:
Many of us are reaching the end of our working lives and know too well the difficulties faced in bargaining COLLECTIVELY for fair conditions and wages.
I worked with these people for 22 years. I was president of their association. The fax continues:
By placing this task on the INDIVIDUAL shoulders of young, inexperienced workers, we believe a less fair Australia will result. Your industrial relations legislation will widen the gap between rich and poor and force workers to compete between themselves, rather than work in a co-operative and harmonious workplace.
We will be the first generation in more than 100 years to expose our children and grandchildren to employers, rather than the arbitration system, having the power to set pay and conditions. Young employees, such as our children, will have to negotiate one on one with their employers. The workers at Boeing have told me that the Australian workplace agreement [AWA] under which they have worked for the past three years is an absolute joke. It has reduced their conditions so that they are now required to work 43 hours a week without overtime and also on weekends. Boeing can change the policy under which employees work at any time. These people were not members of a union in the first instance; they were employed straight from the military under AWAs. Historically, the work force at Boeing is not unionised. They were forced into their current position because of draconian laws and the gutting of the arbitration system. [Time expired.]
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [4.21 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford. I note the words of Mr Greg Combet of 28 October 2005:
… we're not as a matter of principle opposed to the idea of rationalising the number of awards and doing it in an orderly way.
Fancy that! This country has 4,000 awards that overburden businesses and, ultimately, impact on the ability of businesses to provide better outcomes for employees. Does that not go to the heart of what the Federal Government is trying to do, with the support of the New South Wales Coalition? We are pro worker, pro small business and pro business. Those opposite do not support business. The current industrial relations system crosses six State boundaries does not help business, but the Labor Party requires business to comply with six different industrial relations laws across the country. We should wake up to ourselves. We do not have six different taxation systems for corporations. Why on earth would we continue to have six different industrial relations systems at enormous cost to business? Last week Barry Jones said:
Labor is suffering from "policy anorexia". We still do not know, after being in Opposition for nine years, where Kim Beazley and Labor stand.
It would be nice to know whether the Iemma Government will agree with its Federal counterparts to abolish Australian workplace agreements, allow unlimited strike action without secret ballots, abolish protections against secondary boycotts, allow trade unions to engage in pattern bargaining, force businesses to deal with six separate industrial relations systems, subject small businesses to unfair dismissal laws, require small businesses to make redundancy payments, repeal the Government's building industry reforms, and bring independent contractors back into the industrial relations system. What does Labor stand for in this country in relation to industrial relations? Absolutely zip! They cannot put up an intelligent argument.
[Interruption]
As we know, if the honourable member for Bathurst had dynamite for brains, it would not blow his hat off. Those opposite talk garbled nonsense and make no sense about what is going on in this State and this country. They want to continue to run businesses into the ground. Employees would not have jobs if there were no employers. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19659
[Interruption]
Government members have just woken up to the fact, and it is a good point. It is hard for the honourable member for Bathurst to understand that we want an industrial relations system in this country that provides flexibility for businesses to provide more for employees, better wages and better conditions, which is what the new system seeks to do. It is about flexibility in providing a uniform national system that will enable businesses across State boundaries to operate more efficiently with better resources. These reforms will not cut minimal award classifications, as the scare campaign predicts, nor will they abolish awards. I would like the honourable member for Bathurst to refer in reply to the Rural Fires Act and the protection of volunteers. I would like to hear what he has to say about how the reforms impact on the State statute.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.26 p.m.]: This morning 500 people turned out in Queanbeyan to protest the Howard Government's industrial changes. There were record crowds in towns around the Monaro electorate, including Cooma, Eden and a number of other areas. The Opposition seems to be under the illusion that all those who turned out are unionists, but ordinary people and families around Monaro who are not members of unions are concerned, with good cause, about these changes. The no-choice changes from the Howard Government are all about lowering people's working conditions. Rural workers are not in a strong position to negotiate individually with their bosses. Let us go back a couple of years to when Peter Costello let the cat out of the bag. He stated publicly that people working in rural New South Wales and rural Australia should accept lower wages to get jobs.
That says it all about the Federal Government's agenda! It is all about driving down wages and conditions for those who are not powerful enough to stand up for themselves. That is why it is so important that anyone who seeks to represent rural New South Wales should be concerned about these industrial changes. Rural workers are not powerful. Young people of 15 or 16 years looking for their first job in Cooma, Jindabyne or some other area that relies on the tourism industry are not in a position to tell bosses that they want fair working conditions. They will take whatever is offered to them because they will be forced to do so. Contrary to the lies we have heard in John Howard's television advertisements, which have been repeated by those opposite, there are no safeguards for minimum standards. Nothing will stop people from being forced, morally or economically, to accept jobs with lower conditions than those currently offered, including things like four weeks annual leave.
The people in rural New South Wales who will be affected by this legislation constitute a key group that I am sure the Coalition thinks is in their pocket so far as votes are concerned, that is, farming families. Often spouses are forced to seek off-farm income when a drought is particularly bad. Can members imagine the spouse of a farming family—she, or he, which has occurred more often recently—seeking off-farm income, because the family is desperate for enough money to keep going and save their farm, and approaching a local fast food outlet in the area for work? Surely they will stand back and refuse to accept the conditions that will be offered to them because they will be absolute rubbish. The only protection rural people will have comes from having a decent award to protect their position.
The Federal Government's industrial relations legislation is a fundamental attack on families in rural New South Wales. Four weeks leave should be a minimum, and in my view it should be compulsory for workers to take four weeks leave for the benefit of their families. Too often in Australia people think they are doing the right thing by working longer hours and earning more money to pay off their mortgages, but in the meantime their children are suffering because their parents are not around. Yet the Howard Government wants to entrench that standard of living. Countries in Europe provide five weeks annual leave and many other countries provide for more annual leave than Australia because they recognise the importance of it—and their economies are going fairly well, thank you very much!
Almost every employee in rural New South Wales works for an organisation that no longer will have to abide by unfair dismissal laws. Those employees could be sacked in an instant. I have met constituents who have been unfairly dismissed and it is not fair when they are sacked from their job because someone has tried to shift the blame for something that has gone wrong. Most employers in rural New South Wales are fair. The Labor Party knows that, but over time—which is when this legislation will affect employers—the competition from other employers who are willing to drive down wages will force fair employers to offer less to their workers in a competitive environment.
We have heard some absolutely disingenuous rubbish from the Coalition during this debate because they do not have the guts to stand up for rural New South Wales. During question time today we heard 19660 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 interjections such as, "Respect the election result". The Coalition did not reveal that industrial relations reform was on its agenda during the most recent Federal election campaign, just as it did not reveal it proposed to sell all of Telstra or sack Telstra workers. This debate concerns an important State matter. The Federal Government wants to ride roughshod over State awards and State industrial systems. Rural New South Wales is angry. The Coalition will pay the price if it does not have the guts to stand up for rural New South Wales. [Time expired.]
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [4.31 p.m.]: Today we heard the old story from the honourable member for Gosford about the meeting under the great tree in 1891, but members of the New South Wales Labor Party are a bunch of Chicken Littles that have been hit by the union acorn and have been running around screaming, "The sky is falling, everything is falling apart." Unions currently represent less than 20 per cent of all private sector employees. Currently, the rate of union membership is 17 per cent. When fudging is taken into account, as described by the honourable member for Gosford, and the conscripts—those who do not want to be members of unions but are forced into it—are also taken into account, the figure comes down to approximately 11 per cent.
During the most recent Federal election, 34 per cent of union members voted for the Coalition. According to figures published by Unions NSW, the Federal Government was elected because 34 per cent of unionised Labor voted for the Coalition. That means that approximately 11 per cent of workers represented by unions vote for the Labor Party. The Labor Party has a history of creating legislation for its union mates while disregarding what is best for business. As the honourable member for Bega said, we need employers to have employees. We feel for employees who are forced to undertake ridiculous arrangements on behalf of the union movement. I will deal in more detail with that point later. The New South Wales Labor Government continues to disregard the 89 per cent of New South Wales workers who do not belong to unions.
Prime examples of legislation that disregards what is best for business include occupational health and safety regulations, most workers compensation legislation, the infamous workplace fatalities bill, and numerous bills and Acts for individual unions. The Labor Party claims to be creating legislation for 100 per cent of New South Wales workers, but consults with representatives of only 11 per cent of workers. The remaining 89 per cent of workers get nothing from the Government. Between 1995, when the New South Wales Labor Government took office, and in the 2004 funds reporting year, the unions gave the Australian Labor Party [ALP] over $15 million in donations. The unions are gearing up to a big year in 2007. During the 2003-04 financial year, the unions gave the ALP $3.4 million. This all happened after the 2003 election, so the $3.4 million will go toward the 2007 election campaign. With the Federal Government's industrial relations reforms at the top of the agenda, the unions will dig deeper this year to help the 11 per cent of workers they represent. They have the 2004-05 financial year, which is yet to be reported on, and the 2005-06 year, and the 2006-07 year still to come before the next election.
If the unions can keep up the current funding pace and keep the run-up together, the unions will probably contribute approximately $14 million to the ALP before the next election. I reaffirm that this Government is interested in working for only the 11 per cent of unionised workers who contribute millions to Labor election campaigns. The unions contribute millions, the ALP is re-elected, and Labor uses the subsequent four years to create custom drafted legislation for its union mates. That has to be the dodgiest arrangement in Australian politics.
Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The honourable member for Lane Cove is straying a long way from the leave of this motion and is casting aspersions on whether the Government operates on the basis of donations. We know that only one side of politics has ever engaged in cash for comment, and that is the Coalition side.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: That is no surprise. In directing my remarks to the amendment, I point out that the people of New South Wales still suffer from underresourced schools, struggling businesses, terrible, dirty and unsafe rail services, too few police officers, teachers and nurses, pathetic hospitals, too many useless bureaucrats, the highest taxes and the lowest economic growth in Australia. The Government does nothing for the people of New South Wales or the workers. The unions are the only ones getting any benefit from the Government. The Coalition is the workers party. We fight for the workers. As a consequence of the Federal Government's industrial relations changes, protections by law will include minimum and award classification wages, annual leave, personal carers' leave including sick leave, parental leave, maximum ordinary hours of work, protection against unlawful termination, specified award conditions, such as penalty rates, overtime and long service leave, the right to join and be represented by a union, the right to have a bargaining agent and the right to lawful industrial action when negotiating an agreement. The Coalition is the workers party, and we will continue to represent them. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19661
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.36 p.m.]: Members opposite obviously were not in the Domain this morning, they obviously were not in Macquarie Street, and they obviously were not in Belmore Park. If they had been, they would have seen more than 30,000 people from all sectors of society.
Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: I also make the point that we were not on the M4 either.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! That is not a point of order.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: If they had been at the places I have mentioned, they would have seen the whole community listening to the words of Greg Combet, listening to aged people, listening to young people— not just listening to members of the trade union movement, but to the broader community. The rally speakers made it very clear that the legislation that has been introduced by the Howard Government and rammed through the House of Representatives has been passed without giving people time to examine its many pernicious provisions. The legislation will drive down working conditions, living standards and the family time of the great majority of the Australian people. This fight clearly has been taken up by the community and by those who deal with the most disadvantaged in our society—church groups and community organisations. On 19 October the Australian Financial Review cited the remarks of the Salvation Army's representative, who described the planned changes as unethical because they will exploit the most disadvantaged Australians. John Dalziel told ABC Radio on 19 October:
The Salvation Army deals with people who are desperate, and I can assure you that a desperate person will be quite willing to accept the most basic conditions to get their rung on the ladder. That is why workers will be willing to trade away their holiday leave loadings, overtime, weekend rates, and the other working conditions that generations of working people have fought to establish in the job market.
Members opposite want to drive down working conditions, bring in McDonald's-type, casual, part-time employment, and make people so concerned that they will accept minimum conditions. That will undercut other workers and impact on families. Obviously, members opposite were not in Chifley Square earlier today to hear two Boeing workers address the rally. They made it very clear that they had been on strike for 163 days, and they were willing to fight at the front line to ensure protection of working conditions. They spoke of their concerns about key issues that had taken them from being on individual contracts to wanting to be represented by the Australian Workers Union [AWU] through a collective agreement. What has been happening to the workers at Boeing? Firstly, they were on performance-based pay—completely at the discretion of Boeing. They could, of course, go to their human relations people, but their conditions were, basically, take it or leave it.
They received no overtime payment until they had worked 43 hours; they had no standard aviation allowances; Boeing had full power to alter any policies or procedures underlying the contracts without consultation; and they had an annualised salary that paid up to $2 less per hour than the general industry standard. Policies on annual leave, parental leave or disciplinary action could be altered without any recourse by the workers. Those are the working conditions that the workers at Boeing said were detrimental to themselves and had turned worker against worker. Recently Saul Eslake said this whole change, posited on a philosophical belief of the Liberal Party, will not lead to productivity improvements; in fact, it will cause distress in the work place rather than bring it together.
The workers at Boeing were not asking for anything in particular; they were looking more to build a strong working relationship through a collective agreement negotiated by the AWU on their behalf. For that, they have been out of the work force—Boeing has refused to negotiate with them—for 163 days, into the sixth month of the dispute. That is the future for people in this country under the Federal Government's industrial relations policy. [Time expired.]
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.41 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have jointed me in this important debate. I thank particularly the honourable member for Port Stephens for highlighting the classic situation faced by the Boeing workers. On a number of occasions members on this side of the House collectively—there is that word again—put our hands in our pockets to support the workers and their families. We will continue to do that as the workers continue to battle. From members opposite we have heard the normal rhetoric. The honourable member for Gosford, as members who have been here for a few years would know, has that wind-up-toy attitude to this matter. Crank him up and away he goes on his anti- union diatribe.
The important thing about this, as mentioned by the honourable member for Monaro, is that this is not about businesses versus unions, this is about working people. A lot of people in my electorate are not members of unions, but they have been galvanised by this matter. This morning in Martin Place a lady who had travelled from Bathurst tugged me by the sleeve and thanked me for being there to support the workers. She was there to 19662 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 show solidarity for the workers, the unionists, and anyone else who will be victimised by these industrial relations changes. In defence of the honourable member for Lane Cove, his presentation had some style; I have to give him that. As for the honourable member for Bega, he is in the same class but was tacked on at the end. Not once did they address the real issues that affect families around Australia. The motion highlights the situation in regional and rural New South Wales.
Mr Steve Whan: They didn't even talk about it.
Mr GERARD MARTIN: What was the contribution from the former great Nationals?
Mr Steve Whan: They are not even here.
Mr GERARD MARTIN: No, they were so touchy after the Minister for Local Government reminded them of a few pertinent facts during question time earlier this afternoon that they went off sulking somewhere. They have chosen not to speak on an important issue that will affect rural and regional New South Wales, and that will be to their detriment. One worry is that this is another facet of Australian society, which under the guidance of John Howard and his henchmen seems to be becoming a puppet of the American system. We saw that with foreign policy, and the hole that they dug for themselves and us in Iraq, and we saw it with the supposedly free-trade agreement that John Howard and Mark Vaile and the former trade Minister established after kowtowing to the Americans. We are yet to see anything that is likely to benefit farmers in Australia for another 15 years.
Of course, the end result of these industrial relations changes, if the legislation gets up—as eloquently pointed out by my colleagues on this side of the House—is that Australia will have a working poor. I have friends in America and have spent some time there on private holidays. In outer areas such as West Virginia and Arizona, people have to beg with their employers to get reasonable working conditions. We all know that in Los Angeles they are talking about an hourly rate of about $7. That is what we are facing here. Members opposite spoke about the Liberal Party being the friend of the workers. For the past 10 years every minimum wage case has been opposed by the Howard Government. In all cases it wanted to give the workers half what they asked for. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has always put compelling cases to the independent tribunal, but what do we have now?
Cardinal Pell, the Anglican Church, the Uniting Church, the Salvation Army and all the hierarchy are saying that this legislation is wrong and anti-family. Members opposite are pretty good at hiding behind the church brigade when it suits them for political purposes. But people with a real social conscience, like Government members, come out and expose what is wrong. Members opposite are exposed as the shallow ideologues that they are. They have not made the slightest effort to get down to the real basis of this. The Government will not accept the amendment because we want the motion to be agreed to. We now know where the Leader of the Opposition, who has been trying to sit on the fence on this issue, now stands—he has splinters.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 54
Mr Amery Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Barr Mr Greene Mr Pearce Mr Bartlett Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Mr Black Mr Hunter Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Iemma Mr Stewart Miss Burton Ms Judge Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Ms Keneally Mr Torbay Mr Chaytor Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Daley Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Debus Ms Moore Mr Draper Mr Morris Tellers, Mrs Fardell Mr Newell Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mr Oakeshott Mr Martin 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19663
Noes, 27
Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Armstrong Mr Merton Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Cansdell Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Constance Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Pringle Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr George Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Maguire Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner
Pairs
Ms Allan Mr Debnam Mr Brown Mr Hazzard Mr Price Mr Stoner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 54
Mr Amery Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Barr Mr Greene Mr Pearce Mr Bartlett Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Mr Black Mr Hunter Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Iemma Mr Stewart Miss Burton Ms Judge Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Ms Keneally Mr Torbay Mr Chaytor Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Daley Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Debus Ms Moore Tellers, Mr Draper Mr Morris Mr Ashton Mrs Fardell Mr Newell Mr Martin Ms Gadiel Mr Oakeshott
Noes, 27
Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Armstrong Mr Merton Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Cansdell Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Constance Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Pringle Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Tellers, Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr George Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Mr Maguire 19664 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Pairs
Ms Allan Mr Debnam Mr Brown Mr Hazzard Mr Price Mr Stoner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
EAST BOGGABRI COALMINE
Matter of Public Importance
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.00 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public interest a new major project in East Boggabri that will provide lasting economic benefits for the Narrabri region. This project was announced by the Minister for Planning, who gave his approval to a new $38-million coalmine 15 kilometres north-east of Boggabri. The project is expected to generate $1.1 billion in export revenue for New South Wales. It will provide permanent jobs for 80 workers and another 30 workers will be employed during the construction phase. There will also be significant flow-on effects for the region. The coalmine is expected not only to create 80 permanent jobs directly but to generate up to 250 indirect jobs in the region. These will be located in a host of local towns, such as Gunnedah, Boggabri and Narrabri. It is a very important addition to the economy of the region.
Construction of the mine is anticipated to start in early 2006 and it is expected to extract up to 12.4 million tonnes of coal through open-cut mining at a rate of up to two million tonnes per year. The mine is expected to operate for about eight to 10 years. Each year the mine will pay about $37.5 million for supplies and in wages to workers in the area and will pay a further $4.2 million in royalties. Of course, there will be further direct benefits for the people of Boggabri and the Narrabri shire. One of the conditions of consent requires the East Boggabri Joint Venture to make a financial contribution to the provision of services and amenities for shire residents. That is an important aspect of the project, and I point to the benefits that have accrued to the towns of the Upper Hunter from a similar approach taken by Coal and Allied in that area.
The Minister's consent contains a total of 90 strict conditions to ensure the appropriate environmental performance of the mine. The conditions are intended to protect the environment and the amenity of local residents. There is a range of comprehensive environmental monitoring requirements. In addition, a ban has been placed on the hauling of coal after 10 o'clock at night. That is important as we must be aware of the impact of mining—in all its forms—on local amenity. The people of East Boggabri must not be impacted adversely by the noise generated by late-night traffic. Coal from the East Boggabri mine will have to be hauled a total of 41 kilometres to the rail loader in Gunnedah. Therefore, the mine operator will be required to contribute towards maintaining public roads used for this purpose.
The East Boggabri Joint Venture has also proposed a biodiversity offset strategy. This will provide for the long-term conservation of 500 hectares of native vegetation to offset the loss of 78 hectares of open woodland vegetation as a result of the operation of the open-cut coalmine. The joint venture partners own considerable land adjacent to the proposed mine site. This will be used as a buffer zone to protect against any impacts on the surrounding area from the mine's operation. In assessing this project the Minister for Planning considered a range of issues, including air quality, blasting impacts, noise, flora and fauna protection, visual impacts and the effect on ground water and surface water. An assessment of these factors revealed that the mine would comply with all the relevant criteria. In essence, the mine will be able to deliver significant social and economic benefits to the area without generating any substantial environmental impacts.
Madam Acting-Speaker, as the member for Illawarra, you would be well aware of the benefits the coal industry brings to New South Wales. In fact, coal is the State's largest mining sector, accounting for more than 75 per cent of the total value of mineral production in this State. It is also the largest export industry in New South Wales, generating more than $5.5 billion in export revenue in 2004-05. The New South Wales coal sector provides more than 10,000 direct jobs and thousands more jobs through related services and industries. Coalmining is absolutely vital to regional economies such as those in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra, and Newcastle, Lithgow and Gunnedah. The sector's capacity to earn export revenue is important but so is the run of work associated with the coal chain, as we call it, whether it is mining the coal through the open-cut or 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19665 underground methods, bringing the coal to the railhead, transporting the coal to the ports, or loading it and transporting it by ship. The coal industry offers a range of employment opportunities that are very important to the economic development and sustained economic growth of this State.
Significant research and development has occurred in the Narrabri shire to locate new coal deposits and other mineral resources. Through the Exploration NSW initiative, geoscientists within the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries are using cutting-edge technology to map the location of future coal and mineral reserves. In fact, in December this year expressions of interest will close for exploration rights in the Caroona coal area near Gunnedah. That is good work by the Exploration NSW team, which indicates that there could be more than 500 million tonnes of coal in the region that could be accessed through underground mines as well as through limited open-cut operations. This exploration work, coupled with sound development assessments, will help to ensure that our coal sector remains productive and environmentally sustainable for many years to come.
The coal industry in the Upper Hunter, Lithgow and other areas of the State is associated with the generation of electricity. Coal is used for the majority of electricity generation in New South Wales. This Government is committed to addressing greenhouse gas emissions issues connected with the coal industry and to commissioning research in this area. At present the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle is working full-time on improving clean coal production and searching for alternative energy sources, such as wind power or even a hydrogen economy in the future. The mine will enable the people of the Boggabri area to expand the local economy and to diversify the economic base. In that respect I refer to several articles that appeared in Narrabri's newspaper, the Courier, in response to the announcement by the Minister for Planning. The Mayor of Narrabri Shire Council, Councillor Sevil, welcomed the announcement, and said:
This new industry will give economic depth to our Shire.
The Northern Daily Leader reported:
Narrabri Chamber of Commerce president Wayne Grove said the approval was good news for the area and in particular the town of Boggabri.
He said it was now impossible to buy a property in the small town.
Mr Grove was also quoted as saying:
Cotton, wheat, beef and tourism all played a part, but industry like coal mining made communities such as Narrabri more viable.
The broader you have your base, the more viable you are.
That is the response of people in the local area to this proposal, which recently gained the approval of Minister Sartor. I commend the matter of public importance to the House.
Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [5.10 p.m.]: I support the matter of public importance of the honourable member for Newcastle. I have no doubt that the East Boggabri Joint Venture coalmine was welcomed by all facets of the communities in the Narrabri, Gunnedah and Boggabri areas. The approval of a $38 million coalmine adds another arrow to the quiver of local government prosperity and stability. Honourable members may not be aware that 70 per cent of New South Wales coal deposits are located between Breeza and the Queensland border, mostly in my new and old electorate of Barwon, which took in Gunnedah. Indications are that 70 per cent of New South Wales coal deposits are in the area from Breeza, Gunnedah, Boggabri, Maules Creek and Narrabri, and have yet to be developed.
We believe that this is only a very small beginning but, of course, the big problem is transporting coal and other produce from the north-west through to Newcastle. Our world's largest coal loader loads more than 100 million tonnes of top-quality coal every year. Infrastructure in Newcastle needs to be expanded and improved, especially the rail links to the port. I refer in particular to the plight of the Murrurundi tunnel, which creates a huge disadvantage not only for the coal industry but also for the cotton, wheat and other industries that move freight by rail from the north-west of New South Wales to the port of Newcastle. The most economic way to move freight is usually on trains with 84 wagons, but the grade of the Murrurundi Range is so steep that coal and wheat trains are limited to 42 wagons.
The infrastructure in the Hunter, especially the rail systems, must be brought up to speed to create more wealth for the State of New South Wales. Quite simply, our wealth is our coal and all that is needed is infrastructure. The improvements to rail and port services are progressing, but far too slowly. The coalmine is 19666 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 great news for Boggabri and the area, and has been endorsed and applauded by everyone to whom I have spoken. A request is before the Minister to accelerate the creation of another mine 20 kilometres south of Narrabri, which will hopefully occur in the near future. That colliery, which will be mainly an underground colliery, will produce the best coal in the world for export markets.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
BANKSTOWN-LIDCOMBE HOSPITAL ONCOLOGY UNIT
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.15 p.m.]: Yesterday the Minister for Health opened the newly refurbished oncology unit at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, which cost $99,000. With me at the opening of this vital upgrade of the oncology service was my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Bankstown, the Mayor of Bankstown, Helen Westwood, and Councillor Allan Winterbottom, who are all great supporters of the hospital and its medical, nursing and other staff. It is always good news for a local representative to get extra facilities in hospitals in their area.
The new three-bed, six-chair unit provides chemotherapy services to Bankstown residents and takes referrals from across south-western Sydney. The unit has been fully renovated and now has more space for patients and visitors, as well as two new private rooms. The oncology unit at Bankstown provides an important service to the community, and the $99,000 refurbishment will greatly benefit patients and professionals who use the equipment. As we all know, cancer affects many of our friends and colleagues, and unfortunately some members of this Chamber. At least one in three men and one in four women in Australia will get cancer at one stage in their life. Services like those at the Bankstown oncology unit are important as they allow patients to receive treatment closer to their home in their own community.
There are advantages for members representing the electorates of Menai, Bankstown, Liverpool and Auburn, as well as my electorate, as people in our local regions are able to receive treatment at Bankstown rather than having to go to major teaching hospitals in the city. The unit now has a new plasma television, which was donated by LG, represented by Tony Harris.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Life's good.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: Life's good, as the Parliamentary Secretary said. The unit will soon receive six new treatment chairs donated by Bankstown Trotting and Recreational Club and the Bankstown hospital auxiliary, whom I sincerely thank for their generosity and commitment to the hospital and the people of Bankstown. I am sure the Minister for Gaming and Racing would acknowledge that the trotting club is just one of many clubs—for example, the Revesby Workers Club and Bankstown Sports Club—that make a great contribution from their funds to that hospital. Patients undergo treatment for up to two hours at a time and it is important for them to be as comfortable as possible. The refurbishment will make chemotherapy, a very difficult treatment, far more comfortable and easier to bear.
From July 2004 to June 2005 the unit, which was established in 1996, provided 2,776 chemotherapy treatments, and a further 2,200 patient consultations, including consultations with palliative care and radiotherapy specialists. Also in attendance at the opening of the new unit was Glenda Cleaver, the Acting General Manager of Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, whom I thank for her continuing effort on behalf of the medical professionals and the patients at the hospital. I acknowledge the attendance of Professor Diana Horvath, Chief Executive Officer, Sydney South West Area Health Service and Dr Fred Kirstin—whom I can call Fred as he is one of the most down to earth, decent chaps—the Medical Director of the oncology unit.
I was impressed not so much by what Dr Kirstin said when he thanked the very important persons in attendance, but by what he said on behalf of the doctors, nurses and other staff who do such a great job for many people at a very vulnerable time in their life. More important than those people standing up and thanking me and the honourable member for Bankstown, or even the Minister—Dr Kirstin was able to do that very well, because he is a top bloke—was that Dr Kirstin also put on record the great work that is done by his medical team at the Bankstown oncology unit. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19667
ST IVES BUILDING COVENANTS
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.20 p.m.]: I want to raise an issue that relates to the character of St Ives, one of the key suburbs in the electorate of Davidson. One of the main reasons people for many years have moved to Ku-ring-gai to live, particularly St Ives, has been the character of the locality and the streets in which they live. Over the past 40 to 50 years, when people moved in and built homes, they respected the environment and put in place, in some cases, covenants to try to preserve that environment—to establish, create and protect the streetscape of the area. As generation after generation of families moved in and out of the area, those families have, by and large, respected the streetscape and the character of the area.
In recent times, notwithstanding State Government laws and the removal or watering-down of some controls that have protected the character of St Ives, a new problem relating to covenants has arisen and been drawn to my attention. Rhonda Denaro and her husband and a number of residents in the Waterhouse Avenue locality have drawn to my attention that the covenant that they subscribed to when they purchased their properties has been completely undercut and devalued by consent that Ku-ring-gai Council appears to have given for a boundary fence around the perimeter of a dual property in Waterhouse Avenue. The covenant prescribes that no fence shall pass in front of the building setback, between the alignment of the front of a home and the front boundary, or across the front boundary.
The intention was to create an open environment and develop an open streetscape. That has been in place in Waterhouse Avenue since 1963. The purchaser of 31 and 33 Waterhouse Avenue lodged plans in 2004. A number of neighbours objected, primarily because of the bulky nature of the two homes that the applicant sought to place on the property. That in itself would have changed the character of the streetscape and diminished what many people felt was part of the character of that locality. Two weeks ago Mrs Denaro and her neighbours found out that the owner wanted to erect a new side and front fence around those two homes. They also discovered he has somehow got council approval for the fence, without their knowledge. They knew an application had been lodged for the houses, which was approved, but that application did not include a front boundary fence for the property. A front boundary fence would contravene the covenant.
It appears the council has consented to the fence. No neighbours were advised and no affected residents were aware of what was proposed. They are obviously shocked. Coming on top of the building of the two large homes, the fence was effectively the straw that broke the camel's back. Residents of the wider area are very angry because a precedent has been established in the area they sought to protect. They cannot get clear answers from the council so I am calling tonight on the council to openly and transparently indicate what happened in this case. How was consent for this front fence granted by Ku-ring-gai Council? Was it in contravention of council's obligations to notify affected neighbours? Did it comply with the building and development constraints in relation to boundary fences? Was council aware of the covenant?
I understand at least one councillor, Tony Hall, has had a look at the issue and is concerned the council has not acted in accordance with its obligations. The neighbours are concerned that their only option may be to take legal action against the council for granting consent, which is quite unreasonable given they were not aware of, nor notified of, the intention to build a fence in the first place. The way this came about is very questionable. There is an obligation on the council to come clean about what happened. There is also an obligation on council to consider revoking the consent. If the council has not correctly observed its policies and procedures, it should ensure that it rights that which is wrong, and not at a cost to the neighbours and residents who have lost a large part of what brought them to the area in the first place. [Time expired.]
HURSTVILLE STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE
Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [5.25 p.m.]: Last Saturday, as we are all aware, there was a march through the main streets of Sydney recognising the fiftieth anniversary of the State Emergency Service [SES]. I am proud to advise the House that the Hurstville SES unit led that march. I congratulate the unit not only on its recognition and the significant role it played in this march, but also, most importantly, for the contribution it has made to the Hurstville community for 50 years. The Hurstville branch of the SES was founded in 1955, the first year of the SES movement. More than 30 volunteers now participate in the Hurstville SES, all of whom have received nationally accredited training.
I congratulate their controller, Cas Foster, the deputy controllers, Scott Davis and Justin Malcolm, and all the volunteers for the work they do in our community. They are meeting tonight at 7.00 p.m. at their Depot Road headquarters to continue updating their training. They have already been put on alert tonight because a 19668 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 storm is forecast. The unit has taken on new technology, not the least of which is an SMS system so they can be readily informed of what is happening and to make sure they are available as required, particularly when storm fronts are approaching. They have also just received a new vehicle, courtesy of Hurstville City Council. I congratulate the council on its co-operation with the SES unit.
In fact, work commences tomorrow on a new storage facility for the unit's trucks and equipment, which is on land donated by Hurstville Council adjacent to the SES headquarters in Depot Road, which was also provided by the council. We are very fortunate to have such a committed group of volunteers working so diligently. It is always a pleasure to visit Cas Foster and her team. I regularly take the opportunity to thank them on behalf of our community for the great work they do. The SES is involved in many and varied functions, not just assisting the community when there is storm damage to property.
In October the SES was present at the annual Oatley Lions festival. That is an enormous local event and it was again extremely well attended this year. I congratulate the Oatley Lions President, Lynda Robinson, the co-ordinator of the festival, Bryan Pirie, and all the Lions members, as well as a great variety of community groups who were involved in making the festival such a successful function. Another major SES involvement is with the Lugarno Lions spring fair, which was held in September. There were more than 25,000 people at Gannon's Park for that fair. The SES played a significant role in co-ordinating the movement of people on and off the park and in presentations to the community.
I congratulate Bill Penfold, the co-ordinator of the events for Lugarno Lions, and the extensive committee on this enormous undertaking. This year they introduced the Boggywell Creek Race—based on the Henley-on-Todd, the bottomless boat race—which was well received. Our local Lions clubs make significant contributions to the community. Last Friday the Lugarno and Hurstville-St George Lions clubs played a major role in the Hurstville Council Mayoral Golf Day, which raised in excess of $25,000 for the St George Prostate Cancer Institute. I congratulate the Mayor of Hurstville, Vince Badalati, the council and those on the organising committee, particularly Mr Phill Bates, on their support for this charitable organisation. A lot of community groups are involved, one of which is the SES, whom we congratulate on its fiftieth anniversary and on leading the march last Saturday. [Time expired.]
CASINO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUSINESS AWARDS
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION NATIONAL MULTICULTURAL MARKETING AWARDS
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.30 p.m.]: I pay tribute to the Casino Chamber of Commerce, which held its inaugural business awards on Saturday night. I acknowledge Jannie Stevens, its president, and Shirley McNaughton, Karen Dockrill, Julie Magner and Louise Gallagher, who organised the event. I was privileged to be the master of ceremonies. I was joined by my colleague the honourable member for Clarence, the Hon. Ian Causley and the Mayor of Richmond Valley, Charlie Cox. The first award of the night was the Tourism Award, which was presented to the Casino Visitors Information Centre and Platypus Gallery, which have won numerous awards. The retail award for businesses with five employees and under, sponsored by WHK Rutherfords, was won by Phone Scene of Casino, owned by Ashley and Sharla Clark-Smith. The retail award for businesses with more than five employees, sponsored by Turser Employment, was won by the Windara Nursery at Sexton Road.
The professional services award was won by Summerland Credit Union Ltd, which is a locally owned credit union that does a magnificent job. The food and beverage award for businesses with fewer then five employees was won by Cafe 1882, run by Karen Dockrill. The food and beverage award for businesses with more than five employees was won by Windara Cafe and Function Centre. The trade services award, sponsored by Telstra, was won by North Coast Cabinet Pty Ltd, a company that was established by young Casino resident Ben Lamont, who is doing a wonderful job. The recreational and personal service industries award was won by Sharon's Hair and Beauty. The industry and manufacturing award, sponsored by the Northern Co-operative Meat Company, was won by the Richmond River Express Examiner. The Casino Chamber of Commerce and Industry business of the year award was won by C S and B Hardware, which also won the award for chamber business of the year and received the trophy I have donated as a perpetual trophy. The Summerland Credit Union outstanding customer service award was won by Steve Morrissey, a local butcher.
Last night I had the honour of attending the 2005 Community Relations Commission National Multicultural Marketing Awards. Also in attendance was the Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship, who 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19669 is present in the Chamber. The gala presentation dinner was held in the Grand Ballroom at the Westin Sydney Hotel. The master of ceremonies, Steve Liebmann, did a magnificent job. We were welcomed by Stepan Kerkyasharian, AM, chairperson of the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales. The Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship almost stole the show when he said, "You were expecting an Italian Premier of New South Wales, but you've got a Greek Minister instead." He greeted us in good Greek fashion. The grand award and big business category winner was Cisco Systems. Karen McFazden, Vice President, Technical Support Services, received the award. The multinational computer giant, Cisco, won the 2005 National Multicultural Marketing Awards for its creative use of Sydney's culturally diverse work force.
The Australian advertising award went to LOUD Multicultural for its launch of Medibank Private's new Haymarket retail centre. The Office of Fair Trading's commercial small business award was won by LOTE Marketing for its "Every Child Is Important—A Talking Book for Parents from Many Backgrounds". The Casella family provided beautiful wines. Philip certainly looked after the Minister and me. The Government award, sponsored by Casella Wines, was won by the New South Wales Department of Community Services for promoting the cultural competencies of their staff. The Austrade export award was won by Salutist for its effective use of staff knowledge and cultural skills to create a successful export program for natural products. The Australian technology award was won by MC Market's Asia Pacific and the Integral Energy community award was won by FECCA and National Prescribing Service for its multicultural community quality use of medicines program. As a direct descendant of Lebanese heritage I was pleased to join with representatives of all the nationalities, who made it a magnificent night.
Mr MILTON ORKOPOULOS (Swansea—Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.35 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lismore, who joined me at the main table for last night's 2005 National Multicultural Marketing Awards. Both he and I were quite pleased to see the range and depth of Australian companies promoting and using the talents of their employees— multicultural and language skills, knowledge of their culture—to reach out to a significant part of our community, the non-English speaking community. Businesses, both large and small, in all sorts of markets and industries were represented.
The contestants found innovative ways to market goods and services to the non-English speaking community. I congratulate each of the companies on their success. The honourable member for Lismore listed a number of winners, including Cisco Systems, which has chosen Australia as its base precisely because we have the linguistic and other skills, and the geographical location, to give it a springboard into Asia. I congratulate the Department of Community Services on winning one of the awards. The department makes the best use of the diverse language and other skills of its employees, which enables the department to provide a wide service for the community. [Time expired.]
TRIBUTE TO MRS ANN GACITUA
Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.37 p.m.]: Sadly, I must inform the House of a shocking and tragic loss to the greater Menai community. Ann Gacitua, the Deputy Principal at Menai High School, passed away on 29 October 2005 at the age of only 50 years. She undertook a long dreamed of trip with her husband and some very close friends to celebrate her fiftieth birthday in August. No-one could have imagined that it would be the last birthday this wonderful woman would celebrate. Our hearts and sympathies go out to her family and friends. Her Chilean-born husband, Eduardo Gacitua, is a retired teacher from Warrawong High School. Ann taught at Warrawong High School for 22 years. I am sure that all honourable members are familiar with the frequency with which teachers are drawn to, and marry, other teachers.
Together Ann and Eduardo raised two sons, of whom they were no doubt proud as people and high academic achievers. Their eldest son, Eduardo, graduates in pharmacy from Townsville University in 2005. Andre graduates from the University of Western Sydney in 2006 and will go into winemaking in the Hunter Valley. Ann was born and bred in Wollongong. She attended Wollongong High School and University of Wollongong. However, notwithstanding her passion for our Australian culture Ann had a real zeal for South American culture. She spoke Spanish fluently.
Given the number of years that Ann spent in public education in the Illawarra, my community was very fortunate that in 1999 she headed north and took up an appointment first as leading teacher and then as the deputy principal of Menai High School. It is somewhat of an understatement to say that Ann made an invaluable contribution to the life of Menai High School during this period of service. She was more than able to fulfil her 19670 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 leadership role as the deputy principal while also being very hands on in dealing with day-to-day school issues. By all accounts she was an outstanding English teacher, and she was also the vocational education and training co-ordinator for six years.
Ann has been acknowledged as the leader, motivator and driving force of the multicultural anti-racism committee at Menai High School. The program resulted in the school receiving a director general's award for outstanding achievement in multicultural education and harmony. Some time ago I was lucky enough to attend a whole-of-school celebration of multiculturalism at Menai High School and I could not help but be impressed by the school's approach to this important issue. As the principal, Edith McNally, said:
Racism is not tolerated at Menai High School and if it does raise its ugly head it is dealt with constructively so as to restore harmony, respect and tolerance. At Menai High School we "walk the talk" in very real ways thanks to Ann's leadership, courage, energy and compassion. This will be a lasting legacy that is a core value in all we do. Many in the broader community could learn from it.
I am sure that all honourable members would add a supportive "Hear! Hear!" to that statement. Due in no small part to Ann's leadership, environmental education also permeates all curriculum areas at Menai High School. She worked with a team of staff, students and community leaders to build the school's unique learnscape, which is a huge outdoor classroom filled with native plants and it has a distinctly indigenous theme. It also serves as an outdoor performance space that Ann co-opted the building and construction students and the art and agriculture students to build and maintain.
Ann's dreams for this site will be completed and shared with the school and the community as a living memorial to her. It will be known as Ann's Place, a memorial garden which will provide a great place for learning and reflection. Ann's Place will link up an environmental corridor that has been developed with Tharawal Public School, which is Menai High School's nextdoor partner. The entry to Ann's Place will be through an avenue of jacarandas, which will celebrate her love of nature, Australia, and all things South American. It will certainly be a fitting and everlasting tribute to Ann. I have no doubt that the dedication ceremony to be celebrated in a few weeks' time will be a moving experience for all those present.
Today I take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of my local community, the staff of Menai High School and the many surrounding primary schools for the way in which they have supported and counselled all of the students during this traumatic period. Honourable members would be aware that the school's Higher School Certificate students were in the middle of their examinations when Ann passed away. The fact that staff members were dealing with their own shock and grief at the same time as providing support for others makes their efforts all the more remarkable. However, as someone who has been fortunate enough to know and learn for some time from the school's dedicated professionals, I am not in the least surprised at the manner in which they have conducted themselves during this extremely difficult time for the school's community.
I acknowledge the inspirational leadership of Principal Edith McNally. I know that Ann, if only she were here, and her family would not hesitate to endorse that comment. Edith lost both a colleague and friend. They had a strong personal relationship, and no doubt Edith's support as principal was critical to many of Ann's achievements. In saying this, it is not my intention to take anything at all away from Ann's critical importance to the Menai High School community and its reputation for quality public education in my local area. I just want to highlight the appropriateness of allowing the "final word" on Ann's legacy to come from Edith:
Ann will be sadly missed but she has left foundations of learning, multiculturalism, anti-racism and environmental understanding which will serve future generations.
Vale, Ann Gacitua.
SPIT ROAD TRAFFIC
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [5.42 p.m.]: I, too, offer my personal sympathy, as well as the sympathy of my Coalition colleagues, to the school and the family of the late Ann Gacitua, Deputy Principal of Menai High School. It is tragic to lose at such a young age someone who made an enormous contribution.
Traffic around the Spit Bridge in my electorate and the Manly electorate was brought to a virtual standstill yesterday following an accident in which 12 people were injured, some of them seriously. The accident involved a State Transit Authority bus which crossed the median strip on the left-hand bend at the top of the dangerous Spit hill S-bends. A woman was trapped for an hour and a half in one of the cars that was 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19671 travelling in the opposite direction. She later was flown to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital suffering from serious injuries after she had been cut from her vehicle. The bus driver suffered serious head injuries and also was flown to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Eleven ambulances and two helicopters were called to ferry them and 10 other people to hospitals.
Only last weekend, as I drove up Spit hill, I again reminded young members of my family never to drive in the middle lane. I recalled the tragic death some years ago of Lucy Singleton when a four-wheel drive vehicle crossed the S-bends and went straight into her car. While inquiries are still being made into what happened yesterday, one thing is sure: the S-bends on Spit hill are notoriously dangerous and the Labor Government has done absolutely nothing about it, except install speed cameras—and it got even that wrong! On 5 September 2000 I attended a site meeting with a policy adviser from the office of the then Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, representatives of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the honourable member for Wakehurst. My colleague and I told them then that speed cameras should not be installed at the bottom of the hill because the problem was on the S-bends. In response to a letter I wrote to the then Minister, Carl Scully, to that effect, the Minister's senior policy adviser, Sean Kennedy, wrote:
The fixed, digital speed camera installed on the Spit Road, the Spit, targets a 1.1km section of road in which there were 91 accidents resulting in 41 injuries and 1 fatality in a three year period...
Needless to say, the Government had to admit that it got the location of the camera wrong. It has been relocated, but it is not yet operational. However, the Government has ignored all pleas for other safety measures for the road, including the installation of a safety barrier on the median strip. Three and a half years ago the Coroner recommended that variable speed signs be erected on the road, but they have been put on the S-bend only. The Government and the Minister, who has been responsible for creating chaos on the roads, also bear responsibility for doing nothing to improve the safety of motorists, including their own bus drivers, who must travel the hazardous Spit S-bends. In fact, the S-bends will be made even more dangerous and even greater traffic problems will be created if the Government proceeds with its short-sighted and idiotic plans to build an additional two lanes on the opening Spit Bridge. The RTA's Statement of Environmental Effects—Review of Environmental Factors, which was submitted as part of the development application regarding the widening of the Spit Bridge, stated:
Spit Road has a high accident rate due to relatively narrow lane widths, steeper sections of road pavement and sections of poor horizontal and vertical alignment...
The statement continues:
At present the Spit Bridge itself is not the most significant choke point along the corridor for peak direction commuters. The volume of traffic flowing onto the bridge is regulated by the intersections at Seaforth and Spit Junction. However, the easing of the bottlenecks on either side of the bridge would result in the bridge itself becoming a major bottleneck.
There was 100 per cent opposition in the council and the broader community when the plan for widening of the Spit Bridge was first considered. I presented petitions to this House containing more than 6,250 signatures from people who were opposed to the proposal which was foisted on the area without community consultation. Yesterday's accident not only left people seriously injured but also had people driving the wrong way up a one- way street to get around it. That should send a clear message to the Government to devote real attention to finding a long-term solution to the problems of traffic on Spit hill.
BAMBI KINDERGARTEN
Mr STEVEN CHAYTOR (Macquarie Fields) [5.47 p.m.]: This afternoon I speak about Bambi Kindergarten, a not-for-profit preschool operated in Ingleburn on the site of the former Ingleburn military camp. Bambi has provided first-rate child care to generations of families in south-western Sydney, including me, for 53 years. At a time when one would expect Bambi Kindergarten to be going from strength to strength, considering its excellent preschool education services, its affordable prices and its long history, its future is under severe threat. Bambi operates from the Federal Government's Department of Defence land and the Federal Government and the department now want Bambi out.
Bambi has been an important part of the military community and the wider Ingleburn community for many years, but that is not important to the Department of Defence. Bambi kindergarten features a Korean War memorial since many of the children that attended Bambi were children of Korean servicemen, but this is not important to the Department of Defence. The department wants the classes to stop and the memorial to be taken out. A Department of Defence that does not respect past military service and the future education of young 19672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Australians fails the national interest. The Department of Defence wants to sell and develop the land where Bambi now stands as part of the Edmondson Park-Bardia residential development. Bambi does not fit the department's desire to maximise profit from the sale of land. To meet this end, the department has terminated Bambi's lease and the not-for-profit Bambi Kindergarten now faces 2006 with no home. Bambi is in no position to accept enrolments for next year. For the first time in 53 years, Bambi has to turn its back on the children and families of the region.
The Department of Defence has not offered Bambi another site within its extensive land holdings in the area. It has not even bothered to negotiate such an option with the not-for-profit preschool. The department's position is simple: Bambi should close its doors. That option is not good enough. The Federal Government has a gun to Bambi's head. If Disney were making Bambi today, the hunter who killed Bambi's mother would be the Minister for Defence, and Bambi's friends, Thumper and Flower, would be the local Labor members of Parliament who continue to fight to keep Bambi open.
All this is happening at a time when significant residential development is due to take place in the area Bambi currently serves. Over the next decade 30,000 extra people will move into the area where Bambi now operates. The young families moving into the new homes in this area will need a high-quality, affordable preschool education, exactly what Bambi provides. It is hard to believe that the Federal Government cannot find a small part of its record $13.6 billion budget surplus to keep affordable preschool options functioning in south- western Sydney. The new suburbs of Edmondson Park and Bardia will need a preschool. Why close the doors on one that has operated successfully for years, is operating successfully now and should have the opportunity to create a successful future? At a time when all governments in Australia should be ensuring infrastructure is placed into growing areas before residents move in, we have clear evidence of the Federal Government neglecting the provision of important education infrastructure in a new residential estate. I am a graduate from Bambi Kindergarten and there are thousands of others who have benefited from this leading provider of children's services.
Past students, who now span several generations, are outraged at the proposed loss of this valued institution. The community is outraged at the opportunities taken away from future children who will grow up in south-western Sydney. Bambi was known as the Prince of the Forest. The Federal Government should not hunt this preschool down, but provide the land, as it has for the past 53 years, to ensure that the Bambi Kindergarten continues as the prince of preschool education in south-western Sydney.
While discussing south-western Sydney, I take this opportunity to correct General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1007, standing in the name of the honourable member for Gosford, given on 10 November 2005. The honourable member for Gosford asked the House to note that 450 jobs would be permanently lost in the electorate of Macquarie Fields with the defeat of the Save Orange Grove Bill. I inform the honourable member for Gosford that Orange Grove is not in the electorate of Macquarie Fields. It is a good drive down the Hume Highway from the northern border of the electorate of Macquarie Fields to get there. I suggest the honourable member for Gosford updates his planning policies and his Western Sydney street directory.
CENTRAL WEST FLOODING
Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [5.52 p.m.]: Again I refer to the tragedy resulting from stormwater damage at Eugowra and Molong, about which I gave notices of motions last week. Last Friday I visited Eugowra and Molong and last night I again went to Molong to attend a meeting sponsored by the Molong advancement group. At the meeting the majority of Molong business operators met to air some of their issues and tragedies, and to have a bit of a laugh about matters issues such as the rescue of a Shetland pony that went into a coffee shop to escape the rising water. When found, she was standing on a coffee table. Fortunately, she was safe and was returned to her young foal.
The level of water in Molong was the highest recorded. It entered residences and some business premises that had never been flooded in the past. In addition to my words of thanks last night, I record my thanks to the State Emergency Service, New South Wales Fire Brigades, Cabonne Shire Council and Country Energy for cutting off and restoring the electricity supply, Telstra for restoring telephone cables, and all those who supplied thousands of hours of help and moral support over those few days. The bakery was not affected and its employees worked virtually non-stop to provide sandwiches to the emergency workers and business owners. I congratulate Manildra Mills on supplying flour to the bakery so it could bake bread, and Canobolas Eggs on supplying eggs for the sandwiches, as well as other business that supplied food for the sandwiches. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19673
Last night the local business people formed a committee. Over the coming months that committee will try to identify, through the local, State and Federal governments, the cause of the unprecedented level of flooding. The insurance companies have sent out assessors and hydrologists to determine whether stormwater or floodwater caused the damage. I hope the insurance companies show some compassion and declare that the damage was the result of stormwater. Following the inundation, one area of concern relates to the reopening of businesses not affected, such as the chemist shop. Those businesses are experiencing a dramatic downtown in business because people who usually go into Molong, such as farmers, are driving directly to Orange.
Buses are supplied for Molong residents to go to Orange for grocery shopping because both local supermarkets have closed down and the shops emptied. One supermarket operator will not reopen. The other will reopen but it could be a month before it does. Existing businesses, including the post office, the butcher and the baker, are facing this serious downturn because everyone is going to Orange. I hope that the locals support the Molong businesses as much as possible as they struggle to reopen.
Fortunately, I can report that the flood level in Eugowra was almost one metre lower than that predicted by experts. In fact, the predictions of the locals, who have experienced many droughts over more than 50 years, were more accurate. The flooding reached about 9.4 metres, not the anticipated 10.2 metres. Some businesses, including the Fat Lamb Hotel and the supermarket, and some houses on the western side of the bridge, were inundated. Fortunately, the businesses on the eastern side of the bridge were not flooded on this occasion. Again I congratulate everyone in Eugowra on the wonderful work they did in assisting the residents. [Time expired.]
EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [5.57 p.m.]: Some weeks ago, on behalf of the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth, I attended a Creating the Future conference in Port Stephens. The conference was run as a mobile meet involving groups from across the State, South Australia and Queensland to discuss the needs of young children. As a result of my experience as a member of New South Wales Parliament, especially during the 1999 Drug Summit, I have realised that in many ways we need to change home environment funding for the 0 to 5-year-olds. We cannot take money from the education system; new resources are needed for the younger generation. Key ingredients to the problem addressed by the mobile meet included isolation, alienation, lack of self-esteem in the children, lack of motivation in the parents, the break-up of the family unit, the changed role of the male, and living in a country of obscene material wealth which is unattainable by many. Honourable members who attended the New South Wales Drug Summit will recall that there were 11 different working groups. One of the groups at the Drug Summit dealt with early childhood and prevention services. An American who attended the summit said:
From nought to eight you learn to read and from eight on you read to learn. If you do not learn to read you are burnt toast in our society.
Somerset Maugham wrote a lovely book entitled The Verger, but I will not go into that now. At the conference an American neurologist, an adviser to former President Clinton, talked about children who are abused and what the abuse does to their brain size. Professor Graham Vimpani from Newcastle University spoke to the group attending the conference. After Graham's discussion and the Drug Summit I have the lasting impression that early years are important to young children. Children between the ages of nought to three who are abused physically, sexually, emotionally or nutritionally could have a brain that is 15 to 20 per cent less the physical brain size of a normal, nurtured child. Those children always struggle to be accepted because they do not have the neurons and synapsis required to form relationships with friends, families and teachers. They do not have trusting neurons in their systems.
Yesterday I attended a Raymond Terrace and Karuah communities for children meeting. The vision for the Raymond Terrace and Karuah community is to be a community that embraces values and supports children and their families. The community wants to work together to enable children to reach their full potential. A Commonwealth grant of millions of dollars is aimed at this 0 to 5-year-old age group. The conference was held for all those groups in the community that want to access funding for activities including programs for healthy young families, supporting families and parents, early learning and care, child-friendly communities and building community capacity. Some of the programs require $500,000 in funding
After an intensive and comprehensive consultative process over the past few months the Raymond Terrace and Karuah community identified a number of key focus areas, five of which I have just mentioned. We are now trying to establish which community groups can provide activities to support and improve services for families with children who are under five years of age. That great community partnership proposal addresses the 19674 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 needs of the Port Stephens electorate. I understand that 65 per cent of police call-outs involve domestic violence. It has been shown that men who belt their wives probably also belt their kids. Children in abusive situations cannot develop. [Time expired.]
MERCY HEALTH SERVICE FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [6.02 p.m.]: On 24 September 2004 the Mercy Health Service in Albury launched a bold new fundraising campaign to raise $1.5 million to refurbish the Mercy Hospital, which provides the border region with invaluable palliative, aged, parent and baby care. It was an ambitious project with two committees undertaking the fund-raising roles. The former Federal member for Indi, Mr Lou Lieberman, headed the building gift-giving program committee, while my predecessor, the late Mr Ian Glachan, was chairman of the appeal committee.
At the launch Mr Lieberman said that the Mercy Health Service had funding for its staff but not for capital improvements and he took on a community responsibility to raise the money because the services would care for all people, regardless of whether they were New South Wales or Victorian residents. The community was asked to raise $1.5 million to complete funding for the $2.5 million refurbishment of the four-storey hospital building in Albury. The Mercy Health Service had received $350,000 from the Albury-Wodonga Cancer Foundation towards the construction of a new palliative care centre and foundation chairman, Eric Turner, was delighted to know that cancer sufferers, their families, carers and health professionals would all gain a purpose-built facility at last.
With the area health service committing $200,000 to palliative care refurbishment and the promise of further Commonwealth and State funds to follow, the atmosphere at the gala launch in the Commercial Club was upbeat. Actress and charity worker Paula Duncan officially launched the fundraising project and the Commercial Club Albury immediately announced the first donation of a huge $100,000 to the fundraising program. It was fitting, therefore, that after just 59 weeks the target was reached when the President of the Commercial Club, Mr Barry Edmunds, and the chief executive officer, Mr Bruce Duck, presented Mercy Health Service board member Sister Catherine Hughes with a cheque for $60,000. Less than 14 months after launching this ambitious appeal the community of Albury-Wodonga had raised $1,527,042 and events are still being planned so the total will continue to climb. Fundraising chairman Lou Lieberman said that reaching the target in such a short time frame showed the esteem with which the facility was held. He also acknowledged the magnificent generosity of local people and said:
This appeal has shown the calibre and strength of the Albury-Wodonga community.
He praised the community as the best of the best for supporting its own cause and said:
It has shown it can come together and help and encourage the Sisters of Mercy to continue the loving care for which they have become so renowned in their 60 years in this region.
During the course of the appeal many people from many different walks of life came together to support this one cause. Their generosity was all the more remarkable because of so many other fundraisers, such as the tsunami relief appeal. Mr Lieberman noted that children, families, the frail aged, service clubs, registered clubs, business, industry and organisations had all contributed to the outstanding result. There were donations, large and small, pledges, auctions, raffles, dinners, tournaments, concerts, walkathons, fashion parades and sports functions—the most amazing variety of events one could imagine—all aimed at raising funds to expand and modernise palliative and aged care services and the parents and babies unit at the Mercy Health Service.
Already an integrated and co-ordinated palliative care centre has been constructed with 10 single bedrooms with private en suites, a new day resource area providing specialist therapies, meeting rooms, medical offices for a palliative care specialist, a chapel, a family lounge and family room equipped with an en suite so that family members can stay overnight. The new centre was opened on 3 June, the date the Sisters of Mercy marked 60 years of service in Albury. It was a celebration of achievement in so many ways and inspired the community to renew its efforts to complete the task.
Plans have now been approved for a healthy ageing unit which will provide 10 transitional care beds for patients requiring extra care after treatment in an acute hospital and a long stay accommodation unit for the frail aged waiting for placement in residential aged care. Building of this unit will commence early next year. The parents and babies unit has undergone refurbishment and improvements to its services so the Mercy Health Service will continue to provide support to the very young and the very old, with the palliative care centre offering emotional, social and spiritual care for people with progressive illnesses and their families. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19675
This appeal was based on faith at several levels: faith that the community would recognise the need for the three areas of service at the Mercy Health Service—the baby unit, the aged care unit and the palliative care centre; faith that people would respond to the fundraising project because of their long association with the Mercy Hospital and its former maternity unit; the faith of the dedicated and hardworking committee that the target was achievable; and that contagious faith that inspires people to support a cause, encourage others, lead by example and celebrate achievement. My congratulations go to everyone involved. They achieved something very remarkable in our community.
FREE TRADE
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.07 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House the concerns of farmers and primary producers in my electorate whose level of frustration grows as rapidly as the recent floodwaters that many have had to endure. The drought and storms recently experienced in the Dubbo electorate and in the greater Central West brings additional grief for many producers and adds pressures to many who now ponder the future, personally and professionally. How cruel it has been for many to again experience flooding in a year when they have experienced drought, bushfires and locusts.
This concern for their sector is the result of numerous pressures and forces that are not always connected to the weather. I speak of the dangerous free trade ideology that has the potential to inflict irreparable damage on traditional farming sectors in country Australia. Honourable members who represent rural and regional areas would be only too well aware of varying schools of thought over the advantages or otherwise of free trade deals and how they will impact in Australia. Many producers in my electorate fear that we will face shrinking agricultural opportunities if we are swamped by cheap imports. Australian farmers do their best to remain competitive by using sustainable modern practices. That is threatened by free trade deals and heavily subsidised overseas products that are now filling market shelves in Australia.
How is a New South Wales farmer to compete with his European Union counterparts, who have heavy government backing and who swamp international markets with their products? How will a New South Wales farmer compete with other countries that do not place the same value on labour as we do? What of the orchardists who are forced to leave fruit to rot on the tree because of cheap imports of orange juice concentrate invading local markets from countries such as the United States of America and Brazil? Our farmers already endure such headaches without the added strain of free trade deals looming large on the horizon.
There is already growing alarm among fruit and vegetable growers that the road ahead is going to be extremely tough. It is predicted that fruit and vegetable imports could jump from 5 per cent to 50 per cent of the local market in just four years. The pitfalls of a free trade agreement with China are numerous—and it is not just the farmers who say so. Leading agricultural companies also fear what such a deal will have in store for them. They ask how much more difficult it will be to compete in an already tight international agricultural machinery sector.
I cite the case of a farming products manufacturer in Dubbo whose booms and sprayers are in demand in countries such as the United States of America and Canada. The entire operation retains strict quality controls, with machines designed specifically for conditions in these markets. The company requires exacting standards for all materials used to manufacture this equipment, to the point even of designing its own parts and accessories when no equipment can be found or supplied. Some machines require special containers to store seed, fertiliser or chemicals and while the market has a glut of such containers from China, the quality is so inferior that if used it would jeopardise the company's reputation in the marketplace. Rather than take this risk the company is willing to pay extra for quality Australian-made containers but it wonders just how many other companies in its sector choose the path of least resistance and select the cheaper Chinese versions.
Communities in the Dubbo electorate have already witnessed first-hand the result of increased imports of cheap overseas products. If this trend continues will we see more business closures similar to the Austop plant shutdown in Parkes earlier this year? The Federal Government must offer some hope for our farming future by proceeding judiciously with its free trade program and by putting the interests of Australian farmers ahead of any moves to appease overseas leaders. As things stand at the moment, our farmers and businesses are getting shafted at both ends. The challenges posed by cheap imports and costly homegrown regulations are making many producers in the Dubbo electorate wonder how they are still in business.
I would not like to think the only place I will be able to find quality locally grown products, clearly marked as such, is at one of the farmers markets like that held in Dubbo every month. As innovative and 19676 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 successful as these local products are, I would not like to see us reach the stage where Australia produces only lavender or strawberries. Warnings for farmers' futures extend well beyond the farm gate. Country businesses have borne the brunt of the financial drought still being experienced throughout large parts of the State. They have had to meet many challenges in the past harsh seasons. Other commercial interests that rely on the agricultural dollar also face serious problems. Unless the Federal Government exercises caution in the pursuit of its free trade agenda, drought, flood or fire will be the least of the worries of those on the land.
Experts predict that bumper crops will eventuate when harvest swings around but, as the cautious producer will confirm, it is not a sure thing until the crop is on the truck and the money is in the bank. Many farmers practised good drought planning, which was fine for the first couple of seasons. But I have been amazed by the strength and determination shown by producers in hanging in there. The latest natural disaster has been confronted but many wonder how long they will be able to remain in business if these factors are added to by free trade deal complications and burdensome regulations. Many farmers are determined to remain on their properties doing what they have done for generations: contributing to the economy and the food basket of Australia. Coping with the elements is one thing but having an entirely new level of difficulties thrust upon the agricultural sector by their own Federal Government is another thing entirely. As Australia's identity is slowly being sold from under us and as more overseas companies take over brands that were once Australian icons, surely requesting government to retain at least some Australian traditions is not too much to ask.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [6.12 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Dubbo on bringing these important issues of concern to her and her electorate to the attention of the Parliament of New South Wales. That is typical of her commitment both to her Dubbo electorate and to country people throughout New South Wales.
COMMUNITY COLLEGES FUNDING
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [6.12 p.m.]: I am concerned about cuts to government funding for community colleges. This issue was raised on the weekend in the Sun-Herald, which carried a story entitled "Funding cuts risk future of 10 colleges". The State Government appears to be planning yet another cut in funding for community colleges. In the past three years the community college sector has suffered cuts equating to more than 70 per cent of its overall funding. No sector could handle those sorts of cuts from government and I strongly urge the State Government, the newly appointed Minister for Education and Training and the Premier to put a halt to these cuts, which are having a significant impact on community colleges throughout New South Wales. If the cuts go ahead, up to 10 community colleges look likely to close.
I hope that will not include Port Macquarie Community College. I urge the Government to recognise the value of organisations such as that college, which does much good work in the Port Macquarie area. For example, the college has connected and entered into partnerships with other community groups and organisations. It offers programs such as Links to Learning and the Police and Citizens Youth Club Youth at Risk Program. They are good examples of what a community college can do. The college also offers adult learning circles, which are discussion groups for seniors, and other networking opportunities for seniors in our community. Port Macquarie Community College has also entered into a new partnership with the Business Enterprise Centre [BEC] in the Hastings for the benefit of the business community. This partnership was forged after the Department of State and Regional Development cut funds for business enterprise centres and attempted to close the doors of the BEC in our region.
Port Macquarie Community College also holds a winter school for the arts, based on the inaugural City of the Arts event, in partnership with the local council. It provides work experience for students from St Josephs Vocational College. The college is connected with local disability services, such as Intellectually Disabled Adults Further Education and Access Community Education Services, and offers computer courses and courses in craft and reading and writing. The college also offers computer courses specifically for seniors. When I raised the funding issue with the college it pointed out that for the past four years it has run a Pathways Program for youth at risk called Links to Learning. The program helps young people to overcome barriers such as domestic violence, learning disabilities, homelessness and drug dependence. The program includes youth-focused activities and training such as music writing and recording, performance skills, arts, cultural awareness, literacy and numeracy, youth health, budgeting and computer skills. Such skills will help young people to be valuable members of our community.
The Labor Party espouses seven principles of lifelong learning. These are: one, adults are capable of learning at all stages of life; two, the individual learner is the centre of the educational process; three, all adults, 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19677 regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances, have the right to access a diversity of affordable, quality learning opportunities; four, lifelong learning is central to the health, vitality and economic wealth of the community; five, liberal education encourages students to take a considered, critical and evaluative approach to learning and knowledge; six, lifelong learning is essential to the continuing development of informed citizens and the promotion of a democratic society; and, seven, adult and community education [ACE] contributes to the development of a skilled, cultured and creative society. Let us combine that electioneering with the reality of State grants for the ACE sector. In 2002-03 the sector received $8.9 million; in 2003-04 it received $6.1 million; in 2004-05, $4.7 million; and the projected figure for 2005-06 is $2.8 million. I strongly urge the Labor Government to heed its campaign literature and promote lifelong learning principles throughout New South Wales. [Time expired.]
Private members' statements noted.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr John Mills) left the chair at 6.17 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended:
(1) to permit the moving forthwith of the motion relating to sessional orders, notice of which was given this day, as amended.
(2) for the following speaking times to apply for the debate on the motion:
Mover 5 minutes One other member 5 minutes Reply 5 minutes
STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police, and Minister for Utilities) [7.34 p.m.]: Pursuant to notice as amended, I move:
That the following standing and sessional orders be adopted:
(1) PETITIONS
That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Orders 132-133 shall read as follows:
132 The procedure for the lodging and presentation of a petition is as follows:
(1) The Member must be acquainted with the contents of the petition. (2) The Member must ensure that the petition is in conformity with the standing orders. (3) The Member must sign the front sheet. (4) The petition is lodged for presentation with the Clerk. (5) The Clerk shall announce to the House that petitions have been received. (6) The terms of the petition presented shall be printed in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings. (7) No discussion upon the subject matter of a petition shall be allowed.
133 Petitions shall be deemed to be received by the House unless a motion, moved on the next sitting day (not being a Friday), is agreed to, without debate or amendment, that a petition be not received.
(2) FORMAL BUSINESS
That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 113 be suspended.
(3) NOTICES OF MOTIONS
That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 142 shall read as follows:
142 (1) A notice of motion for the following matters must be given verbally at the time prescribed in the Routine of Business:
(a) A notice of motion for a bill; (b) A notice of motion for Government Business; 19678 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
(c) A notice of motion of no confidence in the Government, Minister or Speaker, or censure of Member or Speaker (SOs 122, 123, 123A, 124 and 124A, as amended by sessional order); and (d) A notice of motion for Business with Precedence (SO 127), with the exception of votes of thanks or condolence.
(2) Other notices of motions must be given immediately prior to Private Members' Statements.
(4) ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 110 shall read as follows:
Tuesdays
1. At 2.15 p.m. (Speaker takes Chair) 2. Ministerial Statements 3. Notices of Motions (SO 142) 4. Papers (if the first sitting day of each week) 5. Petitions 6. Placing or Disposal of Business 7. Committee Reports - tabling 8. Call for Notices of Urgent Motions 9. Announcement of Matters of Public Importance 10. Questions 11. Ministerial Statements 12. Motions for Urgent Consideration 13. Matters of Public Importance 14. Business with Precedence 15. Government Business
Other Government Business Days
1. At 10.00 a.m. (Speaker takes Chair) 2. Government Business 3. At 2.15 p.m. (Speaker resumes Chair) 4. Ministerial Statements 5. Notices of Motions (SO 142) 6. Papers (if the first sitting day of each week) 7. Petitions 8. Placing or Disposal of Business (including the re-ordering of General Business Orders of the Day (for Bills) and General Business Notices of Motions (including no more than two such notices intended to be given later that day for tomorrow) 9. Committee Reports - tabling 10. Call for Notices of Urgent Motions 11. Announcement of Matters of Public Importance 12. Questions 13. Ministerial Statements 14. Motions for Urgent Consideration 15. Matters of Public Importance 16. Business with Precedence 17. Government Business
General Business Days
1. At 10.00 a.m. (Speaker takes Chair) 2. General Business Notices of Motions for Bills (concluding not later than 10.30 a.m.) Any interrupted item of business shall be set down as an Order of the Day for Tomorrow with precedence of other General Business Notices of Motions for Bills. 3. General Business Orders of the Day for Bills (concluding not later than 11.30 a.m.) Any interrupted item of business shall be set down as an Order of the Day for Tomorrow with precedence of other General Business Orders of the Day for Bills. 4. General Business Orders of the Day or Notices of Motions (not for Bills) concluding at 1.00 p.m. Any interrupted item of business shall be set down as an Order of the Day for Tomorrow with precedence of other General Business (not for Bills). 5. 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. consideration of Committee Reports presented (Speaker leaves Chair) 6. At 2.15 p.m. (Speaker resumes Chair) 7. Ministerial Statements 8. Notices of Motions (SO 142) 9. Petitions 10. Placing or Disposal of Business 11. Committee Reports - tabling 12. Call for Notices of Urgent Motions 13. Announcement of Matters of Public Importance 14. Questions 15. Ministerial Statements 16. Motions for Urgent Consideration 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19679
17. Matters of Public Importance 18. Business with Precedence 19. Government Business
(5) GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICES OF MOTIONS AND PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, standing order 119 (1), as amended by sessional order adopted on 29 April 2003, shall read as follows:
119. The procedure for General Business Notices of Motions (not otherwise provided for in SO 142) and Private Members' Statements is as follows:
(1) At 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday and at 4.15 p.m. on Thursday and Friday the business before the House shall be interrupted for the giving of General Business Notices of Motions (except on Friday) and the taking of Private Members' Statements respectively.
An enormous amount of time is taken up with formal routine business prior to question time. There are other Australian Parliaments that go straight in to question time at the designated time. For example, questions without notice begins at 2.00 p.m. in the Federal Parliament. I would indicate, firstly, to the honourable member for Epping, that it is not intended that the rights of members of Parliament be reduced in any way. I appreciate that backbench members of Parliament like the opportunity of giving notices of motion but I think it is getting to farcical proportions when sometimes 30 or 40 notices are given before question time. Front benchers on both sides of the House are keen to get into question time and are often delayed—the other day it was 2.55 p.m., almost 40 minutes after we had assembled. What I am proposing is that members of Parliament still be entitled to give their notices of motion; they can prepare their press releases, stand up in Parliament and then tell their local newspapers that they took the fight to Parliament and demanded that attention be given to a particular issue; but it would be done just prior to the taking of private members' statements.
I also say to the honourable member for Epping, through you, Mr Speaker, that I know often on Wednesdays the Opposition will move for the reordering of business and move a motion on that same occasion. I have endeavoured to have the changed standing orders crafted in such a way as to allow the Opposition to still move a motion on Wednesday prior to question time and then move for the reordering of business. It is not designed in any way to prevent the Opposition from doing this. What it is designed to do is to stop the nonsensical situation where members of Parliament get up, make a performance in front of the full gallery in the House, with all the cameras whirring, and endeavour to use question time as some sort of media stunt. I have done this deliberately and I do not apologise for it. I do not believe I am in any way affecting the ability of members of Parliament to continue to move motions, as they have done for a long time. They will merely do so at a different time.
The Clerk is absolutely hoarse and exhausted by the end of the day after reading out all the petitions. I know he is a much-loved figure in the Parliament but we can only feel for him after he has read pages and pages of these petitions. The process will be no different, with members of Parliament on both sides of the House still being able to have their petitions noted, but instead of the ridiculous notion that the Clerk has to read out every petition and the name of every member of Parliament who presents a petition, he will simply say that petitions have been received. I think that is a much more efficient process. Other than notices of motions for bills and other routine things that will still occur, we will basically get into question time not long after the designated time. I trust the honourable member for Epping will support this worthwhile initiative.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [7.39 p.m.]: The Opposition believes that petitions are important in the Parliament. Whenever a member of the Coalition wants to gauge or harvest support about a concern in their electorate he or she puts a petition around and presents it to the Parliament. As far as this side of the House is concerned the presentation of a petition to Parliament, and the reading of it by the Clerk, is an integral part of the petition process. On 9 November the Minister for Education and Training presented a petition from certain citizens requesting that the Redfern Waterloo Authority consult the community about the redevelopment of that authority and support the Pemulwuy project for the Block.
On 10 November the honourable member for Lake Macquarie presented a petition for certain citizens opposed to the proposed development of the former St John of God site at Morisset Park. The honourable member for Miranda presented a petition on behalf of certain citizens opposed to sandmining on the Kurnell peninsula. The honourable member for Kiama presented a petition for certain citizens requesting funding to assist in the construction of the amenities block. When this House divides on this motion, make no mistake, the honourable members representing the electorates of Marrickville, Miranda and Kiama will vote to give a black eye to their constituents on behalf of whom they present petitions. 19680 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
In future when members of the Government hawk petitions in their electorates and pretend to present the wishes of their constituents in Parliament, the Opposition will relentlessly remind their constituents that their elected representatives silenced them in the Parliament and that the Clerk will not read out the petitions that the constituents took the time and trouble to consider and sign. It is a critical part of the process that petitions be vocalised in the Chamber at the time when the Premier and Government Ministers are present so that they hear what the public of New South Wales is saying through their elected representatives. The only time we get the Premier's undivided attention is in the Parliament in question time as he is not here at any other time. The only time we get Ministers' undivided attention is also in question time.
If petitions are not vocalised in front of the Premier and his Ministers they will never ever know about them, much less care about them. Worst of all, this motion does away with petitions as part of the oral process of this Parliament to inform honourable members of the concerns of constituents around the State. Petitions will become a sort of post-office box process, by simply posting items in the bills and papers office—a little bureaucratic exercise. I promise Government members that when they hawk petitions in their electorates the Opposition will remind their constituents that they voted to stop petitions being read out in this Parliament. Notices of motion ought also be put to the House in the presence of the Premier and his senior Ministers. I am not surprised that the new Premier does not want to hear notices of motions, such as No. 910, read out. The motion asks the House to note:
(a) The former Premier's pledge during the 2003 State election campaign to introduce post-separation employment guidelines for Ministers:
(b) The recommendation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for such guidelines in June 2004, following its investigation into former Minister Richard Face;
(c) The appointment of Bob Carr as a consultant to Macquarie Bank; and
(d) The Premier’s failure to introduce guidelines despite promising to look into the matter in September 2005.
The motion calls on the Government to immediately introduce post-separation employment guidelines governing the future careers of former Ministers. All Opposition motions are of that quality and they ought to be put to the House when the Premier and his Ministers are present in the Chamber at prime time, and not later when the Premier has gone home and his Ministers are out of the building attending functions and other things. The Opposition believes they are prime-time business and it will vote accordingly.
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police, and Minister for Utilities) [7.44 p.m.], in reply: I say in response to the honourable member for Epping that the Clerk has just advised me that in the Federal Parliament the process is that the Clerk—
Mr Andrew Tink: This is a State Parliament. You are changing things and you will be reminded of it.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Opposition members will come to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I am guided by what Prime Minister John Howard believes is appropriate for this nation's Parliament in the nation's capital.
Mr Andrew Tink: We are talking about the New South Wales Parliament.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Yes, the New South Wales Parliament is the mother of all Australian parliaments but when the national Parliament has a process for dealing with petitions, I think we ought to at least note—it does not mean we necessarily agree—that in the national Parliament under Prime Minister Howard the Clerk tables the list of petitions. I point out to the honourable member for Epping that the only thing that will change is that the Clerk's voice will not become hoarse from reading out a list of petitions.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Members will come to order. That direction includes the honourable member for Epping.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I am not sure why the honourable member for Epping is so emotional, because what is desired with a petition is to obviously make contact with one's community. All honourable members have filed petitions—
Ms Peta Seaton: And make the Minister and the Government listen. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19681
Mr CARL SCULLY: Let me finish—to ensure that stakeholders know that as a member of Parliament one is engaged with that issue of concern. A member obtains signatures for the petition, it is filed with the Clerk and it is recorded in Votes and Proceedings, which can be shown to communities to indicate that the honourable member has done what is necessary to file a petition. Petitions will still be recorded in Votes and Proceedings and honourable members can show their communities that they presented the petition to Parliament. I understand it is recorded in Hansard as well. What the honourable member for Epping said is an absolute furphy. I have been Leader of the House for more than 2½ years and I have noticed the trend in the past couple of sessions. On a few occasions I indicated to the Opposition that if it continued the trend it stood warned that I would suspend the standing orders to provide for what I have done tonight.
Ms Peta Seaton: You're a bully!
Mr CARL SCULLY: No.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Both sides of the House will come to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The honourable member for Southern Highlands has listened to the nonsensical process of 30 and 40 motions. Members of the Opposition are all falling over themselves and giggling, chortling and chuckling and think this is a big joke. They have their press releases ready. I told them if they kept it up—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Opposition members will come to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I value question time so that the Government can be held to account by all members of Parliament, but it is not for people to parade in order for them to issue a press release for their local rag. The process for parliamentarians to move notices of motion and present petitions to be recorded in Votes and Proceedings is still available. I commend this motion that was forced upon me by the irresponsible actions of the Opposition.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 46
Mr Amery Mr Gaudry Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Mr Gibson Mrs Perry Mr Bartlett Ms Hay Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Mr Black Mr Hunter Mr Scully Ms Burney Ms Judge Mr Shearan Miss Burton Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Daley Mr Morris Ms D'Amore Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Debus Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin
Noes, 32
Mr Aplin Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Merton Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Ms Moore Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr George Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Maguire 19682 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Pairs
Ms Allan Mr Debnam Mr Brown Mr Hazzard Mr Price Mr Stoner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
FIRST STATE SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONVERSION) BILL
SHOPS AND INDUSTRIES AMENDMENT (SPECIAL SHOP CLOSURES) BILL
Messages received from the legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION CORPORATION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9 November 2005.
Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [7.56 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on this bill, the object of which is to constitute the Infrastructure Implementation Corporation [IIC], whose function will be to carry out major infrastructure projects as well as take over responsibility for the carrying out of major infrastructure projects undertaken by other public authorities. The functions of the IIC in relation to major infrastructure projects may only be exercised if authorised by order of the Premier under the Act.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Members will leave the Chamber quietly without interrupting the honourable member for Southern Highlands. That direction includes the honourable member for Davidson. Hansard are having trouble hearing.
Ms PETA SEATON: The Government has brought forward this bill in a desperate attempt to give the impression that it is doing something about New South Wales's desperate infrastructure crisis. One has only to look at the disgraceful record of this Government in providing infrastructure over the last 10 years to understand why it is so embarrassed and desperate and has advanced this stunt to give people the idea it is doing something to correct its record. One has only to look at the Government's State Infrastructure Strategic Plan of 2002 and compare it with the reality to know the Government is in desperate trouble. It has wasted at least $750 million in project overruns and poor project management.
The Opposition undertook an analysis of the 2002 State Infrastructure Strategic Plan two years ago. It revealed the damning truth about the Carr Government's infrastructure spin. One in 10 of the key infrastructure projects on that plan, which the Government had proudly trumpeted as its cure-all for our infrastructure ills, was dead or abandoned, and one in four was delayed or over budget by around $750 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars of promised infrastructure projects were dead and delayed, yet the Carr Government put out a glossy brochure entitled "The 2002 Emerging PFP Opportunities and Major Project Proposals over $100 million".
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I apologise to the honourable member for Southern Highlands for interrupting again, but I am told there is a problem with the microphones. Hansard is having difficulty hearing. I ask members to hold conversations outside the chamber. Although some members may be able to hear the honourable member for Southern Highlands, there is a problem. The honourable member for Southern Highlands has the call.
Ms PETA SEATON: The Government hoped the glossy brochure would give the impression that a lot of infrastructure projects were under way, and that they were keen to get the private sector involved. Again, the Opposition's analysis of the reality of emerging PFP opportunities showed that it was nothing more than spin, with most projects languishing at the assessment stage, and many likely to be only design and construct, which is nothing like a privately financed project or a public-private partnership. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19683
The Opposition's analysis of the PFP opportunities revealed that four major rail projects were dead and abandoned, including several in the Illawarra—members in this place representing the Illawarra ought to be absolutely ashamed of their records in the Illawarra; the State Government misleadingly claimed five major Federal projects as their own when they had nothing to do with the State Government; many projects were likely to be design and construct only participation by the private sector, which is the bluntest, most simple type of project implementation and has nothing to do with PFP or PPP; and most projects were languishing in the black hole of government assessment—Craig Knowles's office in particular—and completely paralysed with the constant in-fighting of Cabinet Ministers about what project should have precedence.
That started to give us an idea of the appalling and disgraceful record of the Carr Government, continuing into the Iemma Government, on the provision of infrastructure. It will be recalled that on 14 March in the Australian Financial Review the former Premier, Bob Carr, made a major announcement that the Government was flagging an increasing role for the private sector in rebuilding the State's dilapidated infrastructure. It tried to relaunch an old and tired infrastructure plan, the so-called $35 billion infrastructure plan, which was nothing more than a rerun of the same old projects it had been talking about for the past few years—many of which were abandoned, over budget and dead in the water, and cost the taxpayers of New South Wales $750 million at least in project overruns and poor management.
The litany of infrastructure failure goes on and on. We all know about the controversy that surrounded the failed cross-city tunnel project. We all know about the Government's failure to plan adequately for Sydney's water supply and security for the next few years, which is why it is foisting on the poor people of Kurnell a flawed desalination project with absolutely no consultation whatsoever. Today the honourable member for Cronulla, while trying to speak up for the people of Kurnell about environmental and other hazards of the desalination plant, was voted against by members of the Labor Party, including the honourable member for Miranda who ought to know better and should back his community in the Sutherland area.
But, again, this is desperation infrastructure because those opposite know that in the past 10 years they have failed to make proper provision for the future infrastructure needs of New South Wales and they are now desperate. We have seen the results of the failures of the last few years. Craig Knowles has now cut and run. He has left this place. He came into the so-called Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources promising to do all sorts of wonderful things with infrastructure. The department became known around the development and infrastructure community as the department of institutional paralysis and no results because everything that went into the department sat on a desk for two or three years, locked up. No decisions were made.
In the meantime, while the Government was saying it was co-ordinating infrastructure provision in New South Wales, the Minister for Utilities was off on a frolic of his own with desalination projects and other things, transport Ministers were doing their own thing without any co-ordination with other transport infrastructure, and the so-called Metropolitan Strategy was dead in the water, having cost the private sector and many other people of goodwill who tried to contribute ideas and submissions to the strategy. All of that work was wasted. There is still no sign of a Metropolitan Strategy. The head of the Premier's Department, Col Gellatly, was running his own race on certain infrastructure projects, and the Redfern-Waterloo Authority was created under Minister Frank Sartor.
Even though the Government was saying that it was trying to integrate infrastructure and planning in a much more rational fashion, the truth was anything but that. A number of Ministers were warring with each other: Craig Knowles and Michael Costa were at odds over light rail in the central business district, and Michael Costa and Carl Scully were at odds over the F6 corridor and other transport projects, and there was a complete paralysis in decision making. We have a rail system in tatters that Ron Christie, a former very experienced senior public servant in New South Wales, told the Government will cost $20 billion of infrastructure investment to get back up to scratch. We have a number of other infrastructure failures around New South Wales—electricity supply, water supply, rail infrastructure and information technology.
It is interesting to note that last week in this place the Premier failed to guarantee that New South Wales would not suffer power blackouts in the coming months. The Government knows it is on the ropes in terms of infrastructure. The content of the bill is an admission of failure by the Iemma Government for the last 10 years in infrastructure management and development. This is desperation time. The Premier is trying to pull things under his control in a desperate attempt to get something to happen. Many people in this place may have seen a memorandum produced by the Premier's Department in the last month. I draw the attention of the House to a ministerial memorandum from the Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales, No. 2005-9, entitled "Major 19684 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Infrastructure Co-ordination and Delivery", to all Ministers, chief executive officers and chairpersons of State- owned corporations.
I read the memorandum with great interest because I thought that at last we might see some attempt to put together a rational approach to genuine infrastructure co-ordination. I hoped it would give me a road map that would make us confident that there was hope of better infrastructure planning in the future. I also hoped that overseas or interstate investors, or people in New South Wales with good ideas about future infrastructure projects, would see in this memorandum a clear road map, a go-to guy, someone who would be the port of call in the New South Wales Government who would steer infrastructure projects from the beginning through to completion. In trying to understand what the memorandum meant I put some thoughts on paper to try to track the Iemma Government's new, improved infrastructure decision-making process. Anyone who thought that Federal Labor's noodle nation was a ridiculous piece of work will look at this and say that it pales into insignificance. I seek to table this diagram to give some assistance to members.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The standing orders do not provide for that. The honourable member for Southern Highlands will proceed with her speech.
Ms PETA SEATON: I am very disappointed, but I can circulate this later for the information of honourable members.
Mr Peter Debnam: It reminds you of Kim Beazley, doesn't it?
Ms PETA SEATON: It does remind me of Kim Beazley. It shows us that rather than having a simpler, more straightforward, approach to infrastructure we have more costs, more duplication, more waste and more chaos in the provision of infrastructure in New South Wales. The Premier is presiding over the infrastructure implementation group. Somewhere else we have the same person in the role of Treasurer presiding over the Office of Infrastructure Management. Somewhere in all of this—but it is never really mentioned—is the Minister for Infrastructure, who does not get a look in. This bill sidelines the Minister for Infrastructure, Michael Costa. He has no role in this because essentially this legislation is being directed by the Premier. The Cabinet Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Planning is an approval body for the work of the Minister for Finance, and Minister for Infrastructure and the Office of Infrastructure Management. The Cabinet budget committee also has a role in this somewhere, and the Department of Planning is somewhere in the left-right-out area, and that is a reference to the Minister for Planning.
Mr Peter Debnam: Is Michael Costa there?
Ms PETA SEATON: Michael Costa is left right out.
Mr Peter Debnam: He has dropped out?
Ms PETA SEATON: He has dropped out. He is the Minister for Infrastructure, but funnily enough, the Minister for Infrastructure does not rate a mention in this bill. The Minister for Infrastructure is sidelined in this bill.
Mr Peter Debnam: What is the bill about?
Ms PETA SEATON: The bill is about the Premier taking on authorisation powers to do with the Infrastructure Implementation Corporation, but it does not mention the Minister for Infrastructure He has been sidelined completely by this bill, as he was by the ministerial memorandum to which I referred. The Minister for Finance, and Minister for Infrastructure seems to play no role. I do not know what he does; he has been hidden away.
Mr Peter Debnam: He has been hidden away like Uncle Fester.
Ms PETA SEATON: Just like Uncle Fester. There is an intriguing reference in this memorandum to at-risk projects. I would like the Premier to be present during this debate to tell us exactly which are the at-risk projects. We might think that the cross-city tunnel would be one.
Mr Peter Debnam: The Cahill Expressway? 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19685
Ms PETA SEATON: The Cahill Expressway may be another. We might think about the desalination project, Royal North Shore Hospital, and perhaps the forensic hospital and the Mater hospital. I would like the Premier to tell us which are the at-risk projects. It seems that the Government has introduced this bill because the Premier has looked at all its infrastructure projects and realised that they are all at risk. In desperation, the Premier has introduced this bill to give him the power to take all the projects into the Premier's Department— not the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources—to manage these at-risk projects. That is the only explanation I can offer for this bill and the proposal to create a whole new State-owned corporation to handle the projects.
According to this flow chart, if that is the correct description of this document, apparently there will be a 10-year infrastructure strategy. What happened to the 2002 State infrastructure strategic plan? What happened to Premier Carr's March 2005 re-announced infrastructure plan? We now have to prepare a whole new 10-year infrastructure strategy. Apparently that will be done without the benefit of a Metropolitan Strategy or any regional strategies. I am unclear about how that will happen. I would like the Premier to be present during this debate so that he can explain it to us.
A great deal has been said in this place about waste, duplication and taxpayers money being spent on projects and government administration with absolutely no benefit to the taxpayer, and we have evidence that the Government intends to do so all over again. As well as creating an incredible mess by the establishment of the additional Infrastructure Implementation Corporation, there seems to be no evidence that existing infrastructure units in other areas have been closed. As well as paying for all the costs associated with this new corporation, we will continue to pay the costs of infrastructure activities taking place in the transport Ministry, the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, the Roads and Traffic Authority's directorate of road network infrastructure and a raft of other infrastructure-related entities that still exist and continue to operate within the New South Wales Government.
The Opposition will not oppose the bill, but it sees the new corporation as yet another stunt and another attempt by the Iemma Government to give the impression that it is doing something about the infrastructure crisis. The Government will fail to deliver the necessary results because more needs to be done to successfully restructure infrastructure besides renaming a few units and reshuffling a few bureaucrats. The only strategy that will bring New South Wales back on track is a change of government to a Liberal-Nationals Coalition government. The real issue in New South Wales is the appalling state of the budget—the budget crisis and the effect of the budget crisis on the State's economy.
One has only to examine last week's national account figures to see that New South Wales is grinding and bumping along the bottom in economic performance. The New South Wales economy is now taking its toll on families and businesses in this State. Last week's national accounts figures show that the rate of gross State product [GSP] growth in New South Wales is just 1.1 per cent, compared to a national growth rate of 2.3 per cent. One also has only to look at the unemployment figures that were published on the day after publication of the national accounts figures to know that Morris Iemma is now the unemployment Premier of New South Wales. He has taken that title because at the same time that the national unemployment rate is 5.2 per cent, the unemployment rate in New South Wales is 5.4 per cent. Every month since he has been Premier unemployment in New South Wales has increased.
New South Wales has the highest State taxes, and in the past year we have had new taxes. The Government has refused to back the Liberal-Nationals Coalition on its payroll tax cuts policy and has refused to go for a full 10 per cent reduction in WorkCover premiums. And now we have yet another government entity being brought into existence because of this bill. This is the bill that we have to have when the Government has no political will. This bill is merely window-dressing. The new infrastructure corporation will not improve the unemployment rate, it will not improve our GSP rate, and it will not improve this State's worsening budget result.
Until the Government tackles the underlying causes of our budget problems, which all stem from waste, duplication, explosive growth of the public sector, failure to maintain budget discipline, budget blow-outs on wages determinations and population exoduses to Queensland and other States in search of newer infrastructure, lower taxes and more affordable homes, and until the Iemma Government gets serious about tax reduction, containing government expenses and taking a realistic approach to infrastructure development that does not include stunts and additional bureaucracy, New South Wales will continue to fail.
Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Southern Highlands for her contribution to the debate
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 19686 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
CRIMES AMENDMENT (ANIMAL CRUELTY) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9 November 2005.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [8.18 p.m.]: I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly to the bill. I usually contribute to debate on bills that address the prevention of cruelty to animals. For the benefit of honourable members who may not remember their Latin lessons, I point out that "cave canem" translates to "beware of the dog". The inscription was found, during excavation of the ruins of Pompeii, on a mosaic tile depicting a dog that was restrained on a leash. Because I know many honourable members are interested in this topic, I inform the House that the words "pozor pes" in the Czechoslovakian language also mean "beware of the dog".
It would seem from recent events that animals should erect a similar sign, warning them of human behaviour. Humans are the only species that kill animals for sport, for thrills, even for sexual gratification, and for trophy collection, amongst other reasons. I welcome the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill and thank the Attorney General for its introduction. I am sure every member of this House was appalled to learn of the senseless and violent attack on animals that occurred earlier this year. Only a couple of weeks ago, while this bill was being drawn up, our attention was directed to the terrible attacks in the far west of Sydney on dogs that were almost beaten to death and ultimately died. As well, there was the cruel incident involving a kitten that was kicked onto a railway line. Such behaviour deserves condemnation from every member of this House, as well as every thinking and caring member of the community. Mahatma Gandhi said that we should judge a society on how it treats its animals. When a society starts to treat its animals badly, it is a sick society.
The bill inserts into the Crimes Act two new offences of aggravated animal cruelty, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. I hope that magistrates, when dealing with the worst offences of this nature, apply penalties near that maximum penalty rather than a lesser penalty, as they currently do. We need to set an example. It has been shown that people who have a bad attitude to animals and are cruel to animals can become serial sex offenders or offend in other ways. There is evidence for that statement. The new offences result from recommendations of the Animal Cruelty Task Force, which was set up by the Government in response to unprovoked attacks against animals. The task force considered whether any changes to animal cruelty laws and procedures were necessary, taking into account existing animal cruelty offences and penalties and how such offences may be prevented by early intervention.
Most current animal cruelty offences are found in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, which was introduced during the great period of the Wran Government, of which the present Attorney General was a member. The new offences complement existing offences but deal with situations in which there is an intention of inflicting severe pain or causing prolonged suffering to an animal, and the animal dies or is seriously injured. The key words are "in which there is an intention". That means that an accused person will have a chance to show that he or she did not have the requisite intent. It is possible to accidentally hurt an animal in many different ways.
If one has the requisite intent, and is found guilty, the penalty should fit the crime. Proposed section 531 creates a new offence of killing or seriously injuring animals used for law enforcement. That offence has been introduced in response to the killing of police dog Titan last year during a police operation. There have been other reports of attempts to injure law enforcement animals, such as throwing marbles under the hooves of police horses. My colleague the honourable member for Mount Druitt experienced that when he was a policeman. I am not sure it happened very often, but in the late 1960s and in the 1970s occasionally marbles were rolled under the hooves of police horses. None of us would tolerate that behaviour.
Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to enable an application to be made to a court for a fingerprinting order for offenders convicted of an offence of cruelty or aggravated cruelty to an animal under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. That provision results from a finding by the task force that where matters were prosecuted by animal welfare organisations, such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, with no involvement by police in the investigation, there was no guarantee that a guilty person's fingerprints would be taken and the subsequent notation made on their criminal record.
In the past, unfortunately, far too often we have left it to the RSPCA and other animal groups to prosecute cases of cruelty. Far too often their resources have been stretched and would have been more 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19687 appropriately spent looking after the welfare of animals rather than having to do much of the work of prosecution to bring those perpetrators to account. I am pleased that the police will be even more involved in ensuring that animal cruelty is a criminal offence with severe penalties. I support the bill.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [8.24 p.m.]: The coalition supports the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill, the purpose of which is to increase penalties for serious animal cruelty from two years to five years imprisonment and to create an offence with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment for killing or seriously injuring animals used in law enforcement. The examples have been cited of police dog Titan, which was killed during a police operation, and of cruelty to police horses that can cause them to fall over, break a leg, and be put down. The honourable member for East Hills gave examples of appalling cases of animal cruelty in recent times. We would all recall those. One case involved the repeated assault on a kitten at a railway station, which would have sickened everyone who saw the video that was shown on the evening news. I note that the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. I note also that the maximum penalty that can be imposed by a Local Court is two years imprisonment.
The honourable member for East Hills spoke about the need for magistrates to impose appropriate penalties. I hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions will, in appropriate cases, give consideration to taking the worst of those cases to the District Court so that it is open to the court to impose harsher penalties. I would have thought that the deliberate killing of a police dog that is attempting to apprehend a criminal would be an appropriate case for the maximum penalty. I would have thought that the recent case involving the torture of a kitten would also be an appropriate case for the maximum penalty. The new provisions are welcome and I look forward to the imposition of penalties that are appropriate to the offences committed, and that necessarily includes prosecution in the right place.
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [8.27 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill. This is another bill that has been introduced over the past couple of years to deal with the absolutely disgusting and abhorrent treatment by some people of vulnerable animals. The community was rightly outraged and upset at the violent and unprovoked attacks on tiny kittens earlier this year. The Government was equally appalled at that behaviour and established the Animal Cruelty Task Force to consider changes to animal cruelty laws and procedures. The task force recommended that two new indictable offences be added to the Crimes Act specifically targeting intentional animal cruelty.
The creation of the new offences sends a strong, clear and direct message to those who think that the torture of vulnerable animals is not a serious issue. They are absolutely wrong. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 to create new serious animal cruelty offences, which the honourable member for East Hills and the honourable member for Epping mentioned, involving the inflicting of severe pain on an animal and killing or causing serious injury or prolonged suffering to the animal. The offences involve a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The bill creates also a new offence of intentionally killing or seriously injuring an animal knowing that it is being used for law enforcement purposes or in retaliation for such use.
Earlier speakers referred to the lovely dog Titan, which sadly died whilst on active duty with its officer. I understand that is only one of a number of serious attacks on animals used by police officers who are doing their duty and trying to promote community safety. I heard about another incident in which a police dog was hit on the head with an axe. As we heard today, violent demonstrators have thrown marbles under the hooves of horses. I cannot recall exactly where that demonstration was, but imagine those horses being directed by police officers and having to cope with traffic, motorbikes, noise, et cetera. It would have been a tragedy if a horse had fallen and broken its leg. It would have resulted in it being put down, not to mention the pain and suffering to the rider. Those horses could have fallen on top of the demonstrators.
It is beyond comprehension how anyone could do something as shocking as that. What is society coming to when people resort to such measures? The maximum penalty available for that type of aggravated offence will now be five years imprisonment, which properly reflects our community's abhorrence to crimes of that nature. I understand that the introduction of new offences under the Crimes Act will not affect offences that currently exist in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Those offences will now be moved into the Crimes Act, which sends a pretty clear message that these offences are serious. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act those offences will remain unchanged, but this bill implements an increasing scale of offences to deal with different degrees of seriousness.
In addition, the bill also amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to enable a court that finds certain animal cruelty offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to 19688 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 be proven to order that the offender submit to the taking of identification particulars, such as fingerprints, by police. That is a new move, and it is another step in the right direction. The task force recommended these measures be put in place to ensure that when criminal charges are laid by animal welfare organisations such as our great RSPCA, or the hard-working Animal Welfare League, the persons convicted can be fingerprinted and the offence is recorded on their criminal record—and so it should be. I am pleased that the Government has introduced this bill and that is there is bipartisan support for it. I wholeheartedly support it and commend it to the House.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [8.33 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill. Indeed, Opposition members have been waiting to speak in debate on a bill that will increase the protection of innocent animals. The objects of this bill are to amend the existing penalties for animal cruelty and to create new offences to reflect the seriousness of animal cruelty. The overview of the bill states:
The object of this Bill is to amend:
(a) the Crimes Act 1900 to create a new serious animal cruelty offence, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, where the offender intends to inflict severe pain on an animal and kills or causes serious injury or prolonged suffering to the animal, and
(b) the Crimes Act 1900 to create a new animal cruelty offence, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, where the offender intentionally kills or seriously injures an animal knowing that it is being used for law enforcement purposes, and
(c) the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to enable these new offences to be dealt summarily...
(d) the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to enable a court that finds certain animal cruelty offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to be proven to order that the offender submit to the taking of identification particulars (such as finger-prints) by police.
This bill was introduced in response to a number of vicious attacks against animals earlier this year. The Government established a multi-agency animal cruelty task force to consider changes to animal cruelty laws and procedure. The amendments in the bill arise from the recommendations in the report of that task force. Under current legislation the most serious animal cruelty offence carries a maximum penalty of only two years imprisonment. Obviously many people believed that was inadequate because of some of the acts that have been carried out against innocent animals.
Kathie Comb, a hard-working person in my electorate, loves animals and works extremely hard to ensure that they are not kept in an unhealthy state. Kathie, the editor of the Berowra and Hornsby Bush Telegraphs, regularly has columns in her newspapers seeking homes for such animals. She is extremely alarmed at some of the acts of cruelty, which have sickened many members of this House as well as many members of the community. They are appalled that anyone would inflict such terrible acts of cruelty on innocent animals.
I refer also to Monika from DoggieRescue.com. She has devoted her life to saving animals that might otherwise have been put to death, left to starve or in such an unhealthy state that their lives were a misery. She, Kathie and her sister Colleen welcome this legislation. My brother-in-law, a former police officer in Victoria, was responsible for a police dog named Boss. Reference was made earlier to the police dog Titan and the closeness between that dog and its handler. My brother-in-law had such a relationship with his dog. The death of any dog causes alarm in the community and destroys the special relationship that has been built up between the dog handler and his or her animal.
I pay tribute to all animal welfare groups and organisations. Animals are an integral part of our society. Many people who have pets regard them as one of the family, which is what they are. Animals are important to families and also to people living alone. Animals assist ill people to become well and people live longer if they have company. I hope this bill is a deterrent to those who seek to make the lives of innocent animals a misery.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [8.38 p.m.]: I strongly believe that the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill is necessary. As parliamentarians we must send a strong message to the community that cruelty to animals in any form—whether they be pets, stray animals or animals in the line of service—is unacceptable. Earlier speakers said that the objectives of this bill are to amend the existing penalties for animal cruelty and to create new offences to reflect the seriousness of animal cruelty. The overview of the bill states: 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19689
The object of this Bill is to amend:
(a) the Crimes Act 1900 to create a create a new serious animal cruelty offence, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, where the offender intends to inflict severe pain on an animal and kills or causes serious injury or prolonged suffering to the animal, and
(b) the Crimes Act 1900 to create a new animal cruelty offence, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, where the offender intentionally kills or seriously injures an animal knowing that it is being used for law enforcement purposes...
(c) the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to enable the new offences to be dealt with...
(d) the Law Enforcement (Powers of Responsibilities) Act 2002 to enable a court that finds certain animal cruelty offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to be proven to order that the offender submit to the taking of identification particulars (such as finger-prints) by police.
Under current legislation the most serious animal cruelty offence carries a maximum penalty of only two years imprisonment, so the bill sends a strong message to the community. The bill creates a scale of animal cruelty offences of increasing seriousness. I believe the new offences and penalties reflect our society's abhorrence of all acts of animal cruelty and send a strong message that such crimes will be taken seriously and punished accordingly. Previous speakers from both sides of the House have made particular mention of the class of new offences and penalties relating to crimes against animals used in law enforcement. This will assist police in carrying out their duties and it recognises the valuable service that these animals provide.
I take this opportunity to comment on an ABC news item of 21 October. In the report an animal protection expert from the United States of America, who was presenting evidence to a forum, suggested that there was a strong link between animal abuse and serious crimes against people. The expert, John Snyder, was in Canberra to present evidence from America to the Australian Urban Animal Management Conference on the links between animal abuse and serious killers and rapists. Mr Snyder said that the links between animal abuse and other sorts of violence could not be ignored. He said:
Violence in the family can often begin by violence against an animal.
He said that some of America's more heinous murderers had started by abusing animals and ended by killing scores of people. Mr Snyder also said that children who abuse animals are five times more likely to harm people later in life and said that parents should look out for early warning signs. We must consider this critical evidence, especially in the context of debate on this bill. Many of my constituents in the Willoughby electorate have raised concerns about animal cruelty and I know that they would want me to speak about this issue in Parliament tonight. I support the bill's objectives and highlight the experts' view that there is a strong link between animal abuse and serious crimes against people. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [8.42 p.m.]: I support the Government in making legislative amendments that seek to reduce cruelty to animals. As we know, Australians feel very strongly about their pets. A 1999 survey found that 85 per cent of Australian pet owners say their pet is part of the family, 57 per cent say their pet is their best friend, 86 per cent believe the main role of their pet is as a loving companion rather than a guard dog or mouse catcher, 69 per cent say their pet's death would be as upsetting as that of a family member, and 60 per cent say that they would put themselves in danger to save the life of their pet. Given that animals are such an important part of the Australian culture it is extraordinary that this bill is necessary.
However, I question whether a person who treats a kitten cruelly, for example, will emerge from five years in gaol with a healthier respect for animal or, indeed, human, life. We know that prison dehumanises people. I wonder whether we are risking turning delinquents with significant mental health issues into hardened criminals or more damaged people. We know that some behaviours are learned and are a response to how people have been treated. When the Companion Animals Act was reviewed in 2003 I observed that it was an inconsistent mix of positive support for responsible pet ownership and punitive controls undermining responsible ownership. A fundamental concern during parliamentary debate on the bill was that it addressed the responsibility of owners but did not deal effectively with the responsibilities of the wider community and government.
As I have often said in the House, I believe much greater effort should go into education and other measures that encourage broad community responsibility for animals and a deeper understanding of the important role that pets play in people's lives. Pets save the nation $2 billion on its health bill every year and there is much evidence to show that pet owners are healthier not only emotionally but physically. Putting 19690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 protections in place for animals is the action of a civil and humane society. The Government should encourage responsible animal ownership, recognise the importance of companion animals to so many people, and perhaps consider some of the wider issues regarding interaction between people and their pets.
On behalf of my constituents, I have raised several animal-related issues in the House in the past—and I shall do so again. I believe if we were to allow companion animals to travel more easily on public transport it would help low-income people, in particular. At present the driver determines whether an animal can board a bus or ferry. In fact, people could travel somewhere with their pet but be prevented from returning home with it. This is an issue for low-income people living in the inner city, especially those who do not own cars. The Government should review legislation to allow responsible pet ownership in apartments. It is about companionship and our actions as a humane and civil society. We need legislation to ensure that practical and financial assistance is provided to people on low incomes, particularly those with mental illness, so that they are not prevented from having pets. The de-sexing of companion animals could be extended through community education and encouragement, with financial assistance or free de-sexing programs for persons on low incomes.
The Government should discourage the inappropriate advertising of pets that encourages impulse buying, particularly at Christmas, and results in their abandonment. The Government should use the Companion Animals Fund to educate the community on the benefits of companion animals, about caring properly for pets and treating them humanely, and about the costs of responsible pet ownership, including immunisation, grooming, food and registration. At present there is an Aboriginal man living on the streets of Waterloo who, I understand, was evicted from public housing because of his pets. There is a serious question mark over whether he and his pets will receive some form of housing in the inner city in future. Those of us who have worked with this man know that if his pets are taken from him he probably will not continue to live: that is how important his pets are to him. That is just one small example of how a civil society should allow pets and people to live together in a supportive environment.
Soon the Government will be able to address many of the issues that I have outlined when a periodic review of the Companion Animals Act is conducted. I hope to see changes in that legislation that will advance the development of a humane society that actively promotes responsible attitudes towards our companion animals so that legislation of the sort we are debating tonight might not be necessary in the future.
Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [8.47 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill. We cannot legislate to make people behave decently towards animals but serious penalties for those who engage in cruel acts against animals might have some deterrent effect. We share this planet with many other animal species. We sometimes abuse that relationship and at other times we enjoy a close relationship with animals. We use animals for food, for hunting and as companions. In all aspects of our relationship with animal species we should accord animals the dignity they deserve and respect their right to occupy a place on this planet. We do not have a monopoly on the right to dignity and a reasonable lifestyle; animals should be entitled to live out their lives in an urban environment and in their natural habitat.
This is a difficult issue because cruelty to animals can be a sign of other underlying problems. Studies on serial killers, for example, have revealed a common fascination with fire, bed-wetting and cruelty to animals. If one has that trifecta he or she is a very seriously disturbed individual. We always recognise that cruelty to animals indicates a severe disturbance in a person. Society and this Parliament have to do what is possible to make sure that legislation is in place to help eliminate cruelty to animals. Recently a number of barbaric events involving companion animals—dogs and cats—shocked my constituents and the public generally. Most people found it repugnant. We have to make sure there is a deterrence and also education of our children to respect other animal species so that we can try to eliminate that type of behaviour. I am pleased that this legislation demonstrates an intention to severely clamp down on the kind of cruelty we have seen in recent times. I support the bill.
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [8.50 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their informed debate on the Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Bill. The community was rightly horrified by recent instances of serious cruelty and torture against defenceless animals. In creating these new offences, the Government is determined that those who perpetrate the worst type of aggravated animal cruelty will be appropriately punished. It is also hoped that its clear message, which has widespread support through the community, will act as a deterrent to potential offenders. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19691
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 8 November 2005.
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [8.52 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition and indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill. The bill makes a number of procedural amendments to the Act to improve its operation. The bill will clarify that warrants for the removal of a child will apply to whatever premises a child may be in. This amendment is a product of proposals from police and magistrates and covers a circumstance in which a warrant is issued but the child is at a different location in the State, or possibly interstate. Under the provisions of this bill, a warrant will be issued for the removal of a child from a different address, without the matter having to return to a court. That sensible amendment is supported by key parties involved in the issuing of warrants.
Gary Moore, from the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], has indicated that the council supports the amendments contained in the bill. Subject to no other issues arising between now and when this bill is before the upper House, the Opposition will facilitate its passage in the Legislative Council. I acknowledge the Minister's staff and departmental staff who made themselves available to brief me on this legislation this afternoon. The bill requires care plans to be presented before the Children's Court awards authorised carers sole parental responsibility. Further proposed changes allow for any medical treatment to be detailed and more easily updated in regulations. The legislation will repeal the section of the Act in relation to medical examinations.
Under this bill the State Records Act does not apply to an excluded children's service and such a service is not a public office for the purposes of that Act. The Act will also make provisions to maintain the licensing exemption of child-minding services in shopping centres. I understand the honourable member for Wagga Wagga will raise a concern of one of his constituents to which I hope the Minister will respond. He is concerned that someone involved in providing child-care services in a non-shopping centre environment may be disadvantaged in some way as a result of this provision. I do not have any concerns as a result of my briefing this afternoon. The bill will ensure that the Director General of the Department of Community Services and the court use the same test for the seeking or issuing of warrants to search for and remove a child in need of care and protection. The definition will be the same for both whereas up to this point it has not been exactly the same. It seems sensible to have the same test if a child is at serious risk of harm.
Finally, the Act will avoid the need for regulations to be amended when standards are updated, for example, for shade shelters. If standards are varied at an Australian level or comparable level then there will not be a need for regulations to be changed to ensure that those conditions, requirements or obligations are met, when appropriate. In many respects, it appears that these amendments, though mechanical, are sensible, logical, progressive changes to ensure that the Act operates in the manner it should. The amendments make the Act more functional. On the basis of what has been provided by the Government, and taking into account the response from NCOSS, the Opposition will not be opposing the bill.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.53 p.m.]: I want to contribute to this important debate on the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill. Children services are important to all honourable members and it is our priority that the best of care is delivered to our children. In this State we rely upon the services of private facilities, community-based facilities and commercial facilities in clubs, casinos or shopping centres. It is important that those facilities and the services they provide are measured so that parents can be confident when they put their child in their care that standards will be met and adhered to. I read the second reading speech of the Minister with interest. As the honourable member for Davidson stated, I refer to section 200 (2)(d) of the Act and ask how the Government will manage that section. The Minister said:
Under the definition, services like child-minding services in shopping centres are exempt from licensing requirements, unless they are provided by a lessee of the shop rather than the owner.
That was not the intention of the Act. However, it is not as simple as changing the definition in the Act. There is still a need to monitor minimum quality standards, and this is best done by amendment to the regulation making power. I have searched the Act today and read it carefully. Section 200 says:
Meaning of "children's service"
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a children's service is a service that provides education or care…or both education and care, whether directly or indirectly, for one or more children under the age of 6 years and who do not ordinarily attend school… 19692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
It then goes on to paragraph (d), which is the one that the Minister referred to. It says:
(d) a regular child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium or a casino), by or on behalf of the person conducting the facility, to care for children while the children's parents are using the facility,
As a result of the Minister's second reading speech and section 200(2)(d) that I just read out, I received some correspondence from a constituent who asked me to raise this issue with the Minister and seek a response. If the Minister cannot respond now, I would appreciate, when this bill goes to another place, a full and detailed explanation of the regulations and how the service will be monitored. That would be very helpful. The concern is that while a range of facilities provide wonderful child-care services that are regularly attended, interviewed and accredited, there may be instances in which organisations can seize on this amendment and, in some way, shape or find ways around providing services that both the Minister and I would regard as important, and which reach minimum standards. The correspondence I received said:
The explanatory notes state that the amendment is designed "to enable the regulations to exempt certain centre based children's services" the main push is to allow child care centres in shopping centres more flexible (poorer) standards than the normal centre based centres.
I have to point out that my constituent, whom I regard very highly, is involved in child care at Carcoola Children's Centre in Tumbarumba. If you want to know anything about child care in our region, Julia Ham is the person that you contact. She is highly regarded both by the community and the child-care industry, for which she works tirelessly. She goes on to say her concerns are:
… care in shopping centres will then be open to unsafe and substandard care even though care is only for a short period of time - A child's care and safety is paramount.
We all agree with that. Bearing in mind the comments of the shadow minister, I do not think we could support more enthusiastically the Minister's intention to deliver better child care and better outcomes for our youth. The letter goes on:
- once an exemption is made, it is open to abuse from some other centres (eg: current long day care or occasional care centres) to also lower their standards. There are many centres only scraping in at regulations standards already.
She goes on to ask what is the point of having regulations if you are going to offer exemptions. The point of concern is the quality of care that will be delivered as a result of this amendment to the Act. What the public and people like Julia Ham want to know is how the services, whether provided by a shopping centre or anyone else that is caught by this legislation, will be measured. How do you intend to deliver that measurement to the public and those parents who use the centres? I have visited a lot of preschools throughout my electorate over the years and, as we all know, preschools that offer education-based curriculum and care have been under enormous pressure as a result of changes to the delivery of services, the provision of long day care centres and the needs of families with young children. It is a far different world from the days when preschools first started. Preschools and long day care centres have had their difficulties as a result of funding problems and the regulation that is imposed on them from this place. Much of that regulation is designed to deliver good outcomes for children. I understand that. That comes at a cost, and those organisations have to find the funds to meet the standards that we impose as legislators. Everyone would agree, after much debate, that those standards are very fair.
I ask the Minister in her reply to tell this House and the people involved in delivering care to young children about the standards that shopping centres, for instance, will have to adhere to when they are caring for youngsters while the parents are on the premises shopping or visiting their local GP or dentist. That is important. The child-care industry would like to know that a fair standard will be applied to everyone. Preschools have invested enormous amounts of money in providing washing machines, sinks, specially designed playrooms, open space and all the things that are regarded as the minimum for delivery of the child care required by the public, parents and legislators, so it is only fair to ask the Minister what kind of standard will apply to shopping centres under this legislation.
I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber and not sending in her parliamentary secretary or someone else to address this matter. I expect we will get a fair response to the questions posed. I am not raising this matter to score points but to address a genuine concern among all members as well as parents who use those services. If she cannot address these matters now and answer them in a way that can be conveyed to those people, please arrange for that to happen in the upper House. Preschool providers, people in the industry and the parents and citizens of New South Wales can then fully understand and judge for themselves the standards she intends to apply under the bill. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19693
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [9.09 p.m.]: I note that the bill makes a number of procedural amendments to clarify and make more workable the operations of the Act. The objectives include clarifying that warrants for removal of a child apply to whatever premises the child is in, recognising that a different address may appear on a subpoena; requiring care plans to be presented before the Children's Court determines to grant an authorised carer sole parental responsibility; allowing for lists of special medical treatments to be detailed and more easily updated in the regulations; repealing the section of the Act concerning medical examinations; clarifying that children's services are not treated as public offices for the purposes of the State Records Act; maintaining the licensing exemption of child minding services in shopping centres; ensuring that the director general and the court use the same tests for issuing or seeking a warrant to search for and remove a child in need of care and protection; and avoiding the need for regulations to be amended every time a standard such as the Australian Standard is updated.
Section 233 of the Act deals with the power of search and removal of children and young persons in need of care and protection. The bill seeks to omit the phrase "in need of care and protection" and insert instead "at risk of serious harm". I draw the attention of the Minister to a matter raised with me on Friday afternoon by a constituent who, following a divorce, has custody of her 15-year-old and 12-year-old sons. The 12-year-old is missing from the custodian—his mother—and allegedly is in residence in a home near Windsor, which is yet to be established. The mother is very alarmed. Sometimes the 12-year-old boy is truanting from school. Yesterday the mother and a worker from the Salvation Army who came to seek my assistance last Friday provided me with a letter detailing chronological events relating to the child, together with activities undertaken by the child and where the child may live.
The mother has sought assistance from the Richmond Department of Community Services, but the department does not appear to be doing anything to find out whether the boy is at risk of serious harm and in need of care and protection. I will make further representations to the Minister. The boy may spend the day wandering around, having been driven by his father from the Windsor area to the Hornsby area. He may or may not go to school. Both his school and his mother have noticed that he is exhibiting serious behavioural problems. I hope that the amendments assist parents such as my constituent, who has custody of a 12-year-old child who is living in other premises, to work their way through what seems to be a very difficult time.
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [9.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I thank the honourable member for Davidson for indicating that the Opposition would facilitate the passage of the bill through the other House. In relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga on behalf of his constituent, I am prepared to ensure that my office provides him with a more detailed explanation so that he may be able to write back to his constituent to alleviate any concerns. After 31 December childminding services offered by lessees in commercial enterprises would be subject to childcare regulations with which they would be physically unable to comply. The regulation covers capacity to provide education, space, playground and outdoor requirements, which make very good sense for traditional childcare centres based around a developmental model of child care.
However, they do not make sense when we are talking about childminding services. I reiterate for the benefit of the House that childminding services are small scale and relate to premises at which children are present for short periods of time—three hours or less. The honourable member referred to traditional childminding centres and preschools, which will not be covered by the exemption, nor is it the intention of the legislation that they be covered by the exemption. The bill will ensure that a regulation with appropriate and workable standards relating to health and safety requirements will be developed in consultation with the sector. If he would like more information I am happy to ensure that it is made available to him. I thank the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Davidson for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION COMMISSION AMENDMENT (STAFF) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 8 November 2005.
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [9.16 p.m.]: I lead for the Coalition on the Technical and Further Education Commission Amendment (Staff) Bill. I indicate at the outset that the 19694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
Opposition will not oppose the bill. Currently, administrative staff of the TAFE Commission and public servants performing similar duties within the Department of Education and Training are precluded from applying for positions in the other agency unless they are advertised in the press. The decision to advertise internally, through the Government Gazette, or externally, through a newspaper, is one for the agency. The decision is determined on whether the expertise required for the job is located within the agency. If the perception is that the expertise is available within the agency then there is no need to advertise in the newspaper and it is advertised internally only.
However, if, in the view of the agency, the expertise is not available within the agency then external advertising is required. The current arrangements place an unnecessary restriction on the mobility of administrative and support staff between two agencies that have a mutual community of interest—the TAFE Commission and the Department of Education and Training. The bill amends the Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990 to create a new framework for enhanced mobility of administrative and support staff between Technical and Further Education Commission staff and those in the Department of Education and Training by providing a deeming arrangement for recruiting purposes that will allow relevant staff to be considered eligible during recruitment for appointment to positions in each agency without requiring the positions to be advertised externally.
The arrangements allow a TAFE employee to be deemed to be a member of the staff of the department if applying for appointment as a member of staff of the department, and vice versa. This deeming arrangement maintains continuity of service, but the relevant person is not entitled to elect to be paid the money value of any accrued extended or annual leave. This is simple, non-controversial legislation. The Coalition will support the bill because, first, the current arrangements diminish the field of suitable applicants for positions; second, the bill provides mobility for administrative and support staff of TAFE and the Department of Education and Training to move between those organisations; and, third, the bill does nothing to change the essential selection on merit, which is central to all applications, be they TAFE or the Department of Education and Training.
Essentially this is commonsense legislation that enables administrative and support staff within both NSW TAFE and the Department of Education and Training to be able to apply for positions advertised internally rather than the current situation where they can apply only if the jobs are advertised externally. The legislation is sound and the Opposition supports it.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.21 p.m.]: I support the Technical and Further Education Commission Amendment (Staff) Bill, a non-controversial bill that seeks a very sensible approach to the current situation. The bill amends the Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990 to create a new, efficient and flexible framework of enhanced mobility of administrative and support staff between the Technical and Further Education Commission and the Department of Education and Training. Most of us are aware that there is a great crossover between these two entities, not just in terms of the administrative arrangements but also in the way in which they actually carry out their work.
Currently the administrative and support staff of NSW TAFE and the Department of Education and Training can apply for jobs in the other respective entity only if they are externally advertised in the general community. As previously indicated, there is a great crossover not only in skills and knowledge but also in the application of the work of both entities. The bill provides for a deeming arrangement for recruitment purposes. This will allow the relevant staff to be considered eligible during recruitment for appointment to positions in each entity without requiring positions to be externally advertised. This is not only very sensible but it will be also much less expensive—we all know how expensive external advertising is. The arrangement will also allow a TAFE employee to be deemed to be a member of the Department of Education and Training if they are applying for employment in that department, and vice versa.
Importantly, a person who is appointed as a member of staff of TAFE, or the Department of Education and Training, in accordance with this framework, will maintain their continuity of service—this will occur without budgetary implications. The framework does not change the principle of merit selection and staff will be selected on a merit-based system. Although NSW TAFE and the Department of Education and Training are separate entities, they enjoy similar features and missions. The corporate services of NSW TAFE are provided by the Department of Education and Training and many of the department's policies and procedures apply to NSW TAFE. The Director General of the Department of Education and Training is also the managing director of TAFE and in 1997 the two agencies were brought together under one portfolio.
This bill is incredibly sensible and non-controversial. NSW TAFE has a network of 137 colleges grouped under 10 institutes that deliver work-related education and training. The Department of Education and 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19695
Training is responsible for supporting the provision of public education throughout the New South Wales primary and secondary education system. As I indicated earlier, much of the final secondary years of school have a great crossover of curriculum and attainment of accreditation with a number of the courses and services provided by NSW TAFE. For two government agencies that provide such significant educational services, the mobility of administrative and support staff is highly desirable.
There are approximately 16,000 support staff in the Department of Education and Training and over 4,500 in TAFE. Their commitment and partnership with the teaching staff and students help shape the education and training system in New South Wales and advance public education in our State. Barriers to promotional opportunity between these entities ought to be removed, and this legislation does exactly that. As the New South Wales education and training system changes and develops, our ability to train, retrain and provide professional development opportunities to support staff becomes more and more important. Increased mobility of administrative staff between these two entities will facilitate cross-fertilisation of staff and ideas, and protect staff entitlements. It will provide staff with more opportunities for professional development in the dynamic education and training sector. In conclusion, I say once again that this bill is non-controversial and sensible; it brings together two tandem systems that work hand in glove and are, in many instances, under the same administration. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville—Minister for Education and Training) [9.25 p.m.], (in reply): I thank all honourable members who took part in the debate. I thank the honourable member for Ballina and shadow Minister for Skills Development and Training for indicating that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. The proposed legislation is an acknowledgement of the need to continue to provide enhanced mobility between administrative and support staff in NSW TAFE and the Department of Education and Training. The bill will provide for stronger and more consistent staff arrangements. It has a provision to fill positions by way of promotion rather than through external recruitment, as applies to other public service agencies. Promotional positions will continue to be filled through a merit selection process. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
RETAIL LEASES AMENDMENT BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. 2)
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with an amendment.
Consideration of amendment deferred.
SELECT COMMITTEE INTO THE CROSS-CITY TUNNEL
Establishment
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
1. That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) the role of Government agencies in relation to the negotiation of the contract with the Cross City Tunnel Consortium,
(b) the extent to which the substance of the Cross City Tunnel contract was determined through community consultation processes,
(c) the methodology used by the Roads and Traffic Authority for tendering and contract negotiation in connection with the Cross City Tunnel, 19696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
(d) the public release of contractual and associated documents connected with public private partnerships for large road projects,
(e) the communication and accountability mechanisms between the RTA and Government, including the Premier, other Ministers or their staff and the former Premier or former Ministers or their staff,
(f) the role of Government agencies in entering into major public private partnership agreements, including public consultation processes and terms and conditions included in such agreements, and
(g) any other related matters.
2. That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders of either House, the committee consist of eight members, as follows:
(a) four members of the Legislative Council, of whom:
(i) one must be a government member,
(ii) one must be an opposition member, and
(iii) two must be cross-bench members, one of whom will be Revd Mr Nile,
(b) four members of the Legislative Assembly, of whom:
(i) two must be government members, and
(ii) two must be opposition members.
3. That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the relevant party leaders and the independent and cross-bench members respectively within seven days of this resolution being agreed to by both Houses.
4. That Revd Mr Nile be the Chair of the committee.
5. That the Chair of the committee have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.
6. That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.
7. A member of either House who is not a member of the committee may take part in the public proceedings of the committee and question witnesses but may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division.
8. That the committee report:
(a) in relation to paragraphs 1 (a) to (e) by the first sitting day in February 2006, and
(b) in relation to paragraph 1 (f) by the first sitting day in April 2006.
9. That leave be given to members of either House to appear before and give evidence to the committee.
10. That this House requests the Legislative Assembly to agree to a similar resolution and name the time and place for the first meeting.
Legislative Council MEREDITH BURGMANN 15 November 2005 President
Consideration of message deferred.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Mr Kerry Hickey agreed to:
That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 16 November 2005 at 10.00 a.m. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19697
COMPANION ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Local Government) [9.32 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Companion animals play a very important role in the health and wellbeing of our communities. On 30 June 2005 the New South Wales Companion Animal Register had 963,362 dogs and 233,314 cats on it. That is a lot of dogs and cats in our community that need, and deserve, to be responsibly owned. It is unfortunate and unacceptable that people in the community who are going about their daily lives are attacked by dogs on the street. The vicious attacks we have seen this year—for example on the streets of Balgowlah, Homebush and Sutherland—by pit bull terrier type dogs is unacceptable.
The Government introduced the Companion Animals Act in 1998, which is recognised as providing for some of the toughest dog control laws in Australia. However, we are not satisfied with this and the Government is taking these laws further to deal with the owners of restricted dogs as well as those dogs declared dangerous by councils. Owners must understand the responsibility they have to the community if they want to own a dog that could endanger public safety. The provisions of this bill will get tougher on the ownership of those dogs that we do not need in our communities. The legislation has been developed in consultation with peak companion animal stakeholders, including the Local Government and Shires Associations, Rangers Institute, Royal New South Wales Canine Council, Australian Veterinary Association, animal behaviourists and animal welfare organisations.
The Government maintains the view that any dog can be dangerous, regardless of its breed, which is why this bill further tightens the legislative provisions for declared dangerous dogs, dog attacks and nuisance dogs and cats, and promotes the responsible management of all companion animals. The current laws in New South Wales are tough on offences by restricted and declared dangerous dogs. But with pit bull terriers it is clear that we need to go further. The community has made it clear that pit bull terriers have no place on our streets. The bill introduces a prohibition on the dogs that are already listed as restricted dogs under the Act, which in New South Wales are predominantly pit bull terriers. The aim is to breed these dogs out of existence. We do not need them.
To achieve this it will be an offence to breed, advertise, sell or acquire a restricted dog. Restricted dogs also will have to be desexed, which is consistent with the current requirements for declared dangerous dogs. To manage the existing stock of these restricted dogs, we are seeking a commitment from local government to make ongoing efforts to educate and deal with dog owners to ensure compliance with very strict control requirements. When owners do not comply, councils will be able to seize and destroy the dog. The bill will strengthen the existing control requirements to ensure that the dog is contained in a prescribed enclosure to ensure that it will not escape, and in particular that children are not able to get into the enclosure. When the dog is outside this enclosure it must be on a lead and be muzzled at all times.
To ensure these dogs are under effective control when in a public place, a person will be able to have only two dogs under their control, if one of them is a restricted or dangerous dog. These dogs will also be required to wear distinctive reflective collars that will enable the public and enforcement officers to easily identify them. We are giving councils stronger powers to effectively manage companion animals in the community and have already increased fixed penalty notice amounts for offences by restricted and dangerous dogs. This bill significantly increases the maximum penalties that can be imposed by a court for all offences under the Act. For example, the maximum penalty for a dog attack by a restricted or dangerous dog will be increased to $55,000, or imprisonment for two years, or both. For all other dogs, we recently created by regulation a new fixed penalty amount of $550 for minor dog attacks. This gives rangers and animal management officers more options to deal quickly and decisively with irresponsible dog owners. Fixed and maximum penalty amounts for all dog offences will also be increased.
The courts play an important role in supporting councils when they take action against offenders for breaches of the Act. Councils have expressed concerns to the Government about perceived light penalties that have been issued by some Local Courts, despite the seriousness of the offences. The community has made it clear that dog-related offences are very serious, as they often lead to significant injuries. It is essential that the 19698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 courts reflect this view when they determine penalties for offences under the Act, especially offences by restricted and dangerous dogs. This bill provides a council with the power to declare a dog as a restricted dog if, in the opinion of the council, the dog is a restricted dog, or the offspring of a restricted dog. This gives councils the power to make owners of these dogs comply with the Act.
When a council proposes to declare a dog a restricted dog, the owner will be able to seek the opinion of an approved breed assessor to confirm the breed of the dog. If it is not confirmed to be another breed of dog, the council will make the declaration. If the dog is confirmed as a crossbreed restricted dog, the owner will then have to seek a temperament test by an approved temperament assessor. If the dog is assessed as not being a likely danger to the public, the dog will not be declared a restricted dog. Breed identification will be the challenge with this legislation. We are trying to avoid a high rate of disputation regarding decisions on breed classification and temperament assessment by legislating for a council declaration system that includes an option for an assessment of the dog by expert breed and temperament assessors. The Director General of the Department of Local Government will approve breed and temperament assessors.
The Government has the commitment of the Royal New South Wales Canine Council, as experts in dog breeding and identification, to conduct breed identification assessments of dogs that are thought to be restricted by councils. The director general will approve the Canine Council as an approved breed assessor. I would like to acknowledge the role of the Canine Council during consultation and in particular the President, Mr Keith Irwin, who has been supportive of the measures in the bill. The Canine Council's aim is to have an approved breed assessor in most, if not all, local government areas in New South Wales.
The Canine Council's involvement as a breed assessor will benefit its many members and the people who buy their dogs from registered breeders. A Canine Council registration or identification certificate, which includes the dog's unique microchip number, will be sufficient proof that a council cannot proceed to declare that dog as a restricted dog; this will be prescribed in the regulation. A temperament assessment system will also be developed to enable appropriately approved temperament assessors to make an informed judgment about the behaviour of a dog and whether it is likely to be a risk to public safety. We have learnt from this type of legislation already implemented in other States and around the world. The bill uses this experience to establish what we intend will be successful laws for the control of restricted breeds.
Queensland and South Australia have already implemented restricted dog prohibitions. Victoria commenced new laws on 2 November this year and the other States and Territories are considering similar laws. The Government will continue to ensure that New South Wales has very strong dog control laws and has led discussions with Ministers from all States aimed at identifying ways of managing restricted and dangerous dogs consistently nationwide. A community education and council officer training program will be developed and funded from the Companion Animals Fund to assist local councils to implement the new laws. The Government has listened, and will continue to listen, to the companion animals industry when implementing this new legislation. The Act has also been subjected to a detailed review, following five years of its operation, that has shown that the implementation of the Act has been very thorough and ultimately successful.
The community has embraced the requirements of the Act, in particular the compulsory microchipping and registration of all dogs and cats. As I have said, nearly 1.2 million cats and dogs are listed on the Companion Animals Register. The Act review report that was tabled in Parliament in June 2004 recommended a number of changes to build upon the principles underlying the Act. Following the tabling of this report further public and stakeholder consultation was conducted. Therefore, the bill includes changes that are designed to clarify the objects of the Act and streamline its operation to further improve the management of companion animals in the community.
The period available for authorised officers to seize a dog following an attack will be extended. This is in recognition of the many councils in New South Wales that cover large areas and that there are occasions when a council is not in a position to seize the dog within the currently required four-hour period. The bill clarifies the procedures for dealing with animals found in public places. These animals can be delivered to an approved animal welfare organisation, approved premises such as a veterinary practice, or a council pound. Approved animal welfare organisations and veterinarians will be provided with upgraded access to the Companion Animals Register to enable them to search for the owner's details where they have a microchip number of a lost animal to enable the animal to be quickly reunited with its owner.
A key objective of the Act is to reduce euthanasia rates by requiring councils to seek alternative measures to euthanasing animals that are in their pounds. An exception to this will be restricted and dangerous 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19699 dogs that are seized by councils in cases when their owners are unable to comply with the control requirements. The Department of Local Government provides councils annually with a spreadsheet for the purposes of collecting relevant data. However, return rates are less than 50 per cent and give only a partial picture. The bill will make it a requirement for councils to report this data as there is a great deal of interest in the community for this information, and will promote accountability and strategic planning of councils' activities with regard to companion animal management. This information is also essential for the measurement of the success of the bill.
The bill will include general duties requiring councils to promote the awareness of the requirements of the Act with respect to companion animal ownership and to ensure they have systems in place to effectively manage restricted and dangerous dogs. The bill will require that any money provided to councils from the Companion Animal Fund be used for the purposes of managing companion animals in their area. This could include upgrades to pound facilities, education campaigns and inspections of properties for compliance with restricted and dangerous dog control requirements. In summary, the bill responds to the desire of our community to have safer streets, and for people not to be subjected to intimidation and danger from dogs with irresponsible owners. The bill provides strong powers to local councils and the courts to enforce strict control requirements to minimise the risk restricted and dangerous dogs pose to safety on our streets. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Kerry Hickey agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit:
(1) the introduction forthwith of the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech:
Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill Parliamentary Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill
at the conclusion of which the House shall adjourn without motion being put.
(2) until the rising of the House no divisions or quorums to be called.
COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [9.47 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government is committed to protecting the most important resource in our society—our children. In 1998 the Government established an independent commission to represent the interests of children and young people. The Commission for Children and Young People has since provided invaluable services to promote the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people in New South Wales. More than 200,000 background checks are conducted each year to assist employers to build workplaces that are safe for children. Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have followed our example, and overseas England also has modelled its reform on the New South Wales commission. This bill follows the statutory five-year review of the legislation underpinning the commission. It implements the review's recommendations, and further strengthens the system we have in New South Wales.
The review was conducted by Ms Helen L'Orange. I thank her for her efforts. A total of 384 submissions to the review were received, including 255 from children and young people. The changes the review has recommended are largely directed at the child protection provisions. They are not, however, intended 19700 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 to overshadow the commission's important focus on advocating for the wellbeing of children and encouraging their participation; it is just that the review found no need to recommend any changes to the commission's education, research and advocacy functions.
I now turn to the main provisions of the bill. In line with the review, the bill amalgamates the two current Acts that underpin the commission, which provides consistency and clarity for employers about their obligations. In keeping with the integration of the legislation, a single set of commission guidelines will cover background checking and employment prohibition. The bill also uses uniform terminology and, importantly, a single, more precise, definition of child-related employment. Again in line with the review, the bill sets out the commission's function of promoting child-safe and child-friendly organisations. This will highlight its importance and encourage employers to adopt it. The commission currently undertakes this role through promoting and providing training on policies, procedures and methods for identifying risks, assuring quality, encouraging an open and participative workplace culture and encouraging children to report behaviour that worries them. Organisations that adopt the commission's recommended strategies thereby improve their risk management practices and become safer places for children.
This bill also strengthens the regime for prohibited employment and responds to community concerns about adults convicted of serious violence against children being prevented from working with children. Currently, serious sex offenders, kidnappers and child murderers are banned from working with children. This bill will now also ensure that those who have been convicted as an adult of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to a child will also be prohibited from working in child-related employment. This is an important safeguard for children. Of course, there is no intention to cover situations such as fights between young people, or harm caused by accident or negligence. The bill will also tighten the circumstances in which prohibited persons can apply for a review of their status.
The bill will ensure that persons who have been convicted of the most serious crimes against children, and are therefore automatically prohibited from working with children, will not be able to seek a review of their status as prohibited. The Government stands by this position and makes no apology for it: the protection of the children in our society is paramount. Serious crimes include murdering a child under the age of 18, producing child pornography, or sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16—or under 18 where the adult is in a special role, like a teacher or sports coach. Of course, it does not include sexual intercourse between young people of a similar age, offences committed as a juvenile, or old offences such as carnal knowledge where the parties were of similar age and no force or intimidation was used.
This bill also will provide an added protection to parents so they can take steps to ensure the safety of their child. I am referring here to cases where self-employed persons provide services to children, such as private tutors, music teachers and coaches. This bill will require self-employed people to display a certificate that they are not prohibited. Parents have a right to know. Where self-employed people do not have a registered place of business, they will be required to show the certificate to parents and clients on request.
I now move on to the bill's provisions about the system of background checks, where employers request a check on someone they are planning to employ. As I indicated earlier, the commission and other agencies perform over 200,000 checks per year on behalf of employers. Background checking is not limited to an applicant's criminal record, but includes looking at other aspects of the applicant's background and, equally importantly, checking the nature of the job and the workplace, as poor work design and inadequate supervision can also place children at risk. Emerging research is demonstrating the necessity of looking at these types of workplace situational factors. The bill also simplifies background checking for some employers. Where employees do similar work for a number of employers, only a single background check will be required. This provision will be particularly helpful in those industries that rely on casual and temporary staff to work with children.
For example, at present casual teachers or child care workers have to be checked by every employer they work for, which is a burden both for employees and employers. This bill now allows employer-related bodies to undertake checks on behalf of all those employers so that people will only need to be checked once if they are doing similar work for similar employers. It also removes the need for employers to recheck a casual employee if they have employed and checked that person in a similar position within the previous year. Both these measures reduce the cost to New South Wales without affecting the protection of children. The bill makes provision for information about a prospective employee to be provided to interstate bodies undertaking child- related background checks, provided those bodies have been approved by the Minister. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19701
As other States and Territories progressively learn from the New South Wales experience and introduce their own background checking systems for child-related employment, this will facilitate the sharing of relevant information while safeguarding its confidentiality. Because of the current wording of the Act it has not been clear whether some specific convictions of a sexual nature, like filming a child for indecent purposes, were to be taken into account in the working with children check. The bill makes it clear that they will be. The current Act requires employers to notify the commission when they have investigated some complaints about staff behaviour, but it has not always been clear when this requirement comes into effect. This bill provides certainty to employers about when their obligations arise.
It has also not been clear that if employers have wrongly notified the commission about such a proceeding they can withdraw or delete the notification. The bill makes provision for employers or the commission to do so. There has been some uncertainty about whether using a work computer to download child pornography constitutes conduct that an employer is required to report to the commission. The bill clarifies that it is. Unauthorised disclosure of information acquired during the course of background checking is, naturally, an offence. However, the bill clarifies that disclosure is permitted with the consent of the person concerned or if commission staff make a risk of harm report to the Department of Community Services, again making it plain that protection of children is our overriding concern.
I now turn to the bill's compliance measures. The commission's approach to its working with children provisions over the last five years has primarily been through education and encouragement. Employers recruiting people for paid or unpaid child-related employment have now had time to learn about their child protection obligations. New South Wales employers have overwhelmingly understood the need to protect children in their workplaces and have incorporated this into their everyday human resource practices. However, it appears that a small number of employers have deliberately decided not to request background checks, which may mean that children are at greater risk in those workplaces. Strengthening the penalty provisions in the legislation will add force to its obligations and promote the child protection objectives of the Act.
This bill will give the commission increased powers to audit compliance with the Act, particularly by asking employers to provide documentary evidence that they are meeting their child protection obligations. Employers who are found not to be complying will be issued with a notice to comply. If they still refuse to comply they could be prosecuted. Just the prospect of receiving such a notice may well encourage compliance. This stronger compliance system is further demonstration of the Government's commitment to protecting children. The bill also extends the current voluntary accreditation scheme to programs as well as individual counsellors. This will assist courts and others with their referral options, as they will be able to rely on its quality in the same way they currently can with individual counsellors who are accredited.
I conclude with a mention of the ongoing work the Government intends to do to further reform this area following the introduction of the bill. We will consult with those groups that are impacted on by the review's recommendations for extending background checking to further improve our system in New South Wales. They need to be part of this decision so we will seek their views. This bill will strengthen the protections for our children. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
PARLIAMENTARY SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [10.00 p.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today the Government introduces a bill that overhauls parliamentary superannuation in line with the former Premier's announcement to establish a 9 per cent scheme for future members of Parliament at the 2007 general election. The Parliamentary Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill closes the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund to members first elected at the 2007 general election, together with former members who are re-elected at that time after a break of more than three months from the Parliament. For these members, the Government will pay contributions into First State Super or another complying accumulation superannuation 19702 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005 fund of their own choice. I will shortly explain the new arrangements in more detail. In summary, they are similar to those available to the majority of New South Wales public sector employees recruited. They are also similar to recent changes to parliamentary superannuation in the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions.
The new parliamentary superannuation arrangements will be established by amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971, the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 and the First State Superannuation Act 1992. Honourable members will be aware that, before amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971 can be passed in the Legislative Assembly, the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal must certify that the amendments are warranted. I am pleased to advise that, following his assessment, such certification has been provided by the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal, His Honour Judge Boland.
The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund will continue to provide the current superannuation arrangements for all sitting members who are re-elected at the 2007 general election. The fund will also continue to be available to sitting members who subsequently leave Parliament, but only if they re- enter Parliament within three months of leaving. New members elected at or after the 2007 general election and former members who are re-elected at or after that time will be covered by the new arrangements. As happens now, payment of a former member's parliamentary pension would cease for the duration of the new period of parliamentary service and recommence once that new period of service ends.
The Commonwealth Government closed its scheme for Federal parliamentarians at the October 2004 election and established new arrangements similar to those proposed in this bill. Under the Commonwealth legislation, New South Wales parliamentarians who transfer to the Federal Parliament will no longer be able to join the now closed Commonwealth Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme. This bill replicates the Commonwealth change. That is, this bill will prevent Commonwealth parliamentarians who transfer to this Parliament on or after the 2007 election from joining the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund. They will instead be covered by the same new arrangements applying to New South Wales parliamentarians who enter Parliament after that election.
The new parliamentary superannuation arrangements will be provided through First State Super, which covers the majority of New South Wales public sector employees. The legislation governing First State Super allows all employees to choose another complying superannuation fund instead of First State Super into which employer contributions are to be paid. This bill provides members of Parliament covered by the new arrangements with the same choice of superannuation fund, with First State Super being the default fund if no choice is made. The Government contributions will be at the rate of 9 per cent in accordance with the community standard. The bill includes a regulation-making power to enable the contribution rate to be changed in the future if that is required.
For members who are not recognised office holders, the Government contributions will be based on current basic salary plus any allowances up to the maximum contribution base, as defined in the Commonwealth's superannuation guarantee legislation. This is the maximum amount of salary under the Commonwealth legislation on which an employer must pay superannuation guarantee contributions. The maximum contribution base is adjusted annually by the Commonwealth. For recognised office holders, the Government contributions will be based on the current basic salary plus any additional salary payable to the member in accordance with the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989.
The bill includes a regulation-making power to enable a different salary basis to be used for calculating contributions if that is required in the future. Under the new arrangements, future members of Parliament will not be required to pay any contributions themselves unless they want to. A member will have the same option as public sector employees of paying the voluntary contributions from either their post-tax or pre-tax salary. The Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 is amended to allow future members to salary sacrifice up to 50 per cent of their base salary and any additional salary payable to them in accordance with that Act. This maximum percentage currently applies to New South Wales public sector employees but may change in the future. Again, the bill includes a regulation-making power to allow the percentage to be changed in the future if appropriate.
I now turn to other amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971. These amendments address some anomalies that have become apparent recently. The first anomaly flows from amendments made in 2002 that prevent members of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund from accessing their benefits while still in office. Members aged 65 or over are therefore required to continue to pay contributions even though their entitlements may have stopped increasing in value. The bill allows members of 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19703 the fund to cease paying contributions if they are at least 65 years of age and have at least 20 years of service. For members who choose to cease paying contributions, their entitlements will be deferred and calculated as if they had ceased to receive a parliamentary salary at the time of making that election.
The second anomaly arises from the current legislative requirement for members to make an election to commute a pension entitlement within three months of leaving Parliament. This is inappropriate for members who first entered Parliament after 6 December 1999 because their pension payments cannot commence before the age of 55, even if they leave Parliament many years before that age. The bill will allow these members to make an election to commute all or part of that pension to a lump sum within three months of the pension commencing to be paid. The third anomaly addressed by this bill relates to the reduction of benefits to meet Commonwealth surcharge liabilities accrued prior to 1 July 2005. Currently, the legislation allows the fund trustees to reduce benefits for this purpose except in the case of one type of spouse pension—that is, where the spouse pension is 45 per cent of the basic salary. The amendment in the bill will ensure that the trustees have the power to reduce this benefit in the same way as all the other benefits payable from the fund.
The bill addresses a fourth anomaly by ensuring that a continuing member of the fund who dies on polling day before the polls close is deemed to be a serving member at the time of death for the purposes of the Act. This will occur provided the person was contesting the election at that time, whether for the same or another seat or House of the Parliament. Honourable members will recall that the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act was also amended following the sad death of the late Jim Anderson on polling day at the 2003 election. The final anomaly being addressed by the bill ensures that certain pensions are correctly adjusted in the same manner as other pensions payable from the fund. The amendment brings the legislation into line with current practice and will not alter the value of benefits paid. I commend the bill to the House.
I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 certificate furnished by His Honour Judge Roger Boland as required under section 14A (3) of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989.
Leave granted.
Document tabled.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.10 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Frank Sartor: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the Duties Act 1997, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Insurance Protection Tax Act 2001, the Land Tax Management Act 1956, the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971, the Petroleum Products Subsidy Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1996. The bill makes a number of amendments to these revenue, grant and subsidy Acts to ensure that the legislation remains consistent with current commercial practices, and is more equitable and certain in its application. The proposed amendments are the result of monitoring of business practices by the Office of State Revenue [OSR], ongoing liaison with industry and professional bodies, and consultation with revenue offices in other States. I will deal with the amendments to each Act in turn.
The major amendments to the Duties Act are to close off two mortgage duty avoidance practices. Where a loan is secured by mortgages of property in New South Wales and another State, New South Wales duty is payable only on the New South Wales proportion of the property used as security. A duty avoidance practice has been uncovered whereby the proportion of New South Wales property is artificially reduced by omitting New South Wales property from the security until after the date at which the liability to duty is calculated. The avoidance practice takes advantage of an administrative provision in the legislation to bring forward the liability to a date before any loan amounts have been advanced, and therefore before most of the 19704 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
New South Wales property has been included as security. The amount of duty avoided amounts to several million dollars each year. The bill limits the use of the administrative provision to genuine cases where the property included at the liability date is sufficient to secure the loan advances.
The second avoidance practice relates to an exemption that formerly applied to mortgages securing advances under debentures issued by a corporation. In 1999, this exemption was changed to a more limited concession to prevent avoidance practices. As a result of further identified abuses of these provisions, the concession was terminated in 2003 so that any new debenture arrangements could not be created to avoid payment of mortgage duty. Those amendments also ensured that mortgages previously eligible for the concession would be liable to duty on any further advances, but retained the exemption for mortgages executed prior to 1999. Recent reviews by OSR have noted an increasing re-use of old debenture structures to facilitate new loans, which has the potential to cost the revenue several million dollars per annum. OSR records indicate that there are more than 700 of these old structures which may still be utilised to avoid duty on new advances. The bill amends the provisions to close this avoidance avenue by providing that mortgage duty is payable on all new advances made under debenture structures regardless of the date of establishment of the original structure.
The remaining amendments to the Duties Act contained in the bill primarily extend various duty concessions. The first is an extension to concessions relating to superannuation funds. The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority [APRA] is introducing new registration requirements for superannuation funds, which are expected to result in the merger of a significant number of funds. The Duties Act contains existing concessions intended to ensure that where members move from one fund to another, the transfer of assets representing the value of the member's benefits is not subject to duty. However, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has advised that the concessions will not be adequate in all cases to allow assets and members to be transferred without the imposition of duty. The bill therefore provides further duty concessions for the transfer of property from the custodian of one superannuation scheme to the custodian of another scheme where members are transferring to another fund. Relief is also provided for the transfer of property held by a Pooled Superannuation Trust to another scheme as a result of a fund merger or transfer of members.
Land rich duty is payable on the acquisition of an interest in certain land holding unit trusts as if it were a transfer of land. A concession applies to wholesale unit trust schemes, which are defined by reference to a list of persons who are qualified investors. The bill extends this list, and limits the instances in which responsible entities of managed investment schemes can be treated as associated persons. These changes will increase the number of schemes that are eligible for the concession, and reduce the number of transactions that are subject to duty. The bill extends the period for a concessional rate of insurance duty to apply to insurance effected under the Debtors Insurance Scheme operated by the Stock and Station Agents Association. This concession was originally limited to insurance effected up to 1 February 2005, but the association subsequently requested an extension due to continuing financial difficulties caused by the drought. The bill extends the concession until 31 January 2010.
The bill implements three new exemptions from duty. The first is for transactions entered into for the purposes of an approved home equity release scheme for aged home owners. Many older people have valuable homes, but little cash on which to live. An equity release scheme allows the home owner to access part of the value of their home without affecting their right to reside in, lease or sell the property. Such schemes provide home owners with cash in exchange for the right to a specified percentage of the future sale proceeds when the home is eventually sold. The owner's liability under an equity release scheme is capped to a share of the sale proceeds. These schemes are essentially financing transactions, but will in some cases require an agreement to transfer the agreed share in the property, which would be liable to transfer duty.
The Government announced an exemption from duty for these transactions with effect from 1 October 2004. The bill gives effect to that announcement. To allow flexibility in the design of these schemes, the exemption will be subject to approval by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, in accordance with guidelines approved by the Treasurer. The bill also introduces new exemptions from two anti-avoidance provisions. Consultation between the OSR and industry groups has identified unintended consequences of these provisions. The bill therefore provides an exemption from call option assignment duty where a person who acquires options over property that is to be held in a trust or syndicate assigns those options to a special purpose vehicle for the purpose of raising funds. An exemption from mortgage duty is also added in relation to transferred mortgages, including for mortgages transferred between members of a group of corporations, or in connection with mortgage backed securities, or to a new security trustee.
The First Home Owner Grant scheme is a national scheme administered by the States and Territories under eight separate Acts. State revenue offices have identified some minor inconsistencies in the eligibility 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19705 criteria for the grant and in the administration of the scheme, and have agreed to recommend amendments to the legislation to address those issues. The amendments in the bill arose from that process. The first amendment is to increase the minimum age limit for applicants from 16 years to 18 years, consistent with the limit in all other States and Territories. Applicants aged under 18 will still be eligible for the grant in certain circumstances. A similar amendment is made to the First Home Plus scheme. The second is to allow an applicant to be eligible on a second application if the original grant was paid back and any penalty in relation to the earlier application was paid.
This situation arises most commonly where the applicant fails to occupy the home as his or her principal place of residence, and is therefore required to repay the grant. Most other States have already amended their legislation to allow payment of the grant in those circumstances. To complement this provision, the bill also limits the prior ownership restriction, which provides that the grant is only payable on the applicant's first home. To ensure that a small period of occupation does not render the applicant ineligible, prior ownership of residential property will only render the applicant ineligible if he or she occupied the home for a continuous period of at least six months. The bill also clarifies the circumstances in which the chief commissioner may exercise certain discretionary powers. Eligibility for the grant includes a residence requirement, which states that the applicant must occupy the home as his or her principal place of residence for at least six months commencing within 12 months of purchase. The Chief Commissioner is given the power to extend the period of 12 months, to reduce the period of six months, or to waive the residence requirement completely.
The discretions are intended to allow the grant to be retained in circumstances where the applicant genuinely intended to occupy the home as his or her principal place of residence, but failed to do so due to a change in circumstances after the purchase of the home. The legislation limits the time at which the Chief Commissioner can exercise this discretion. This could have unfair consequences, particularly where a failure to comply with the residence requirement arose from changes to the health, employment or financial situation of the applicant or the applicant's family. The bill confirms that the Chief Commissioner can exercise the discretions at any time. Finally, the bill provides a right to object to decisions of the Chief Commissioner to require repayment of the grant or to impose a penalty, in addition to the existing right to object to the Chief Commissioner's decision on an application for the grant. This will formalise the existing practice of the Office of State Revenue. As a result of these amendments, a small number of applicants who would currently be required to repay the $7,000 grant will be eligible to retain the grant in future, and a small number of additional applicants will be eligible for the grant.
The insurance protection tax raises funds for the Policyholders Protection Fund to cover certain claims under insurance entered into by insurers who become insolvent. In some circumstances, a policyholder will already be liable to cover those claims before any claim can be made against the Policyholders Protection Fund. In these cases, the policyholder is effectively paying twice for the same risk. The bill therefore allows the Treasurer to approve such insurance or class of insurance as exempt insurance for the purposes of the insurance protection tax.
The bill makes amendments to various exemptions from land tax. Land currently qualifies for a land tax exemption if it is within a rural or non-urban zone and is used primarily for primary production; or if it is within an urban zone and is used in the course of carrying on a business of primary production. The Local Government Act definition of "farmland" contains a more precise business test. The bill amends the land tax provisions to be consistent with that definition. These amendments will ensure consistency as between land tax and council rates, in relation to the classification of primary production land in urban zones.
The bill provides further concessions for an owner's principal residence. The land tax legislation allows a person who temporarily vacates his or her principal place of residence to retain the exemption for up to six years, provided the property is not rented for more than six months in a particular year and the owner resumes occupation or sells the land within six years. However, if the owner fails to resume occupation within six years, the land becomes liable retrospectively for the entire six-year period. The bill removes this retrospective liability. The bill also contains minor amendments to remove an anomaly and simplify administration of the exemption for vacant or unutilised land intended to be the owner's principal residence.
When the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2004 was being debated, the Government agreed to introduce amendments to the exemption from land tax for land subject to conservation agreements, to restrict it to agreements made for an indefinite period. This will provide an incentive for owners to sign indefinite conservation orders. The bill incorporates this amendment, in accordance with the Government's commitment. The bill also makes a number of statute law amendments to remove redundant provisions, and to update certain section references and exempt organisations due to changes in other legislation. 19706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15 November 2005
The bill makes amendments relating to the liability to payroll tax on share schemes benefits and long service leave contributions to industry funds. The Pay-roll Tax Act taxes shares and options provided to employees and company directors. A number of simplifying amendments were made earlier this year after extensive consultations with employer representatives. The bill reinserts a provision that was inadvertently omitted by these earlier amendments. The provision, which is being inserted retrospectively, will enable employers to deduct any consideration for the acquisition of the shares when calculating the taxable value of shares and options. The Pay-roll Tax Act currently taxes employers' long service leave and lump sum payments on termination of employment. Central Industry Funds have been established in industries which have a mobile work force due to the project nature of the work, such as in the building industry.
These funds allow employees who regularly move from one employer to another to qualify for long service leave and redundancy benefits based on their length of service in the industry rather than with a particular employer. The bill provides for an employer's contribution to a Central Industry Fund to be taxed, but exempts amounts paid by the employer to an employee to the extent that the employer is reimbursed by the Central Fund. This ensures that an employer is only liable to pay tax on contributions relating to the period during which an employee worked for the particular employer.
The petroleum products subsidy scheme ensures that New South Wales sellers of eligible petroleum products near the Queensland border are able to compete fairly with Queensland sellers of on-road fuel, who receive subsidies from the Queensland Government. The New South Wales scheme provides for payment of subsidies to service station operators and distributors selling bulk fuel to end users located in five zones extending south from the New South Wales-Queensland border. The subsidy is payable when diesel intended for on-road use, or petrol, is purchased from a service station. A subsidy is also payable to a distributor who sells on-road diesel or petrol to a consumer for the purpose of operating a business within one of the five zones. If a distributor or a consumer purchases subsidised fuel when they are not entitled to do so, the legislation requires them to repay the subsidy to the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue. However, the legislation does not provide a mechanism for the Chief Commissioner to recover such overpayments.
The bill includes provisions to allow the Chief Commissioner to issue a notice of assessment where a subsidy recipient is required to repay the subsidy. In cases of dishonesty, the Chief Commissioner will be able to impose a penalty up to the amount of the subsidy that must be repaid. The bill also authorises the Chief Commissioner to charge interest if the person enters into an arrangement for repayment by instalments. In determining the amount of any penalty, the Chief Commissioner will be required to apply the principles relating to penalty tax and interest under the Taxation Administration Act. The bill extends the rights of subsidy recipients to object or appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the Supreme Court in relation to a requirement to refund a subsidy or to pay a penalty or interest. These proposals are consistent with current provisions for repayment of a grant under the First Home Owner Grant Act.
The bill makes it clear that the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue may enter into arrangements with corresponding Commissioners in other Australian jurisdictions for the purpose of carrying out investigations under New South Wales taxation laws in those other jurisdictions. The bill also makes it clear that statutory State Owned Corporations are not grouped for pay-roll tax purposes merely because they have the same two Government Ministers as their notional shareholders. This recognises that State Owned Corporations operate independently of each other despite the fact that they may be responsible to the same Minister.
Under section 8A of the Legislation Review Act 1987, the Legislation Review Committee is required to consider each bill and report to both Houses of Parliament on the impact of the bill on certain matters affecting personal rights, liberty and obligations, and parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. The amendments dealing with stamping of mortgages secured on interstate property and the closure of the concession for mortgages associated with debenture issues are taken to have commenced on the date this bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. The Committee has previously noted that allowing a period of time between introduction of a taxation bill and the commencement of that law can, in some circumstances, undermine the intent of that law.
As these provisions are targeted as specific duty avoidance practices, it is appropriate that they commence from the time the intention to amend is made public. I am pleased to say that in other respects, this bill not only contains provisions that are reasonable and necessary to protect the revenue without unduly trespassing on personal rights or liberties, but also clarify taxpayers' rights and obligations, including extension of the categories of reviewable decisions. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire. 15 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19707
BUILDING PROFESSIONALS BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with an amendment.
Consideration of amendment deferred.
The House adjourned at 10.29 p.m. until Wednesday 16 November 2005 at 10.00 a.m. ______