21507
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 17 March 2010
______
The President (The Hon. Amanda Ruth Fazio) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION (AUTHORISED TRANSACTION) BILL 2010
CASINO CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted for procedural motions for the first readings, printing, suspension of standing orders and fixing of sitting day for second readings to be dealt with on one motion without formalities?
Leave not granted.
WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION (AUTHORISED TRANSACTION) BILL 2010
Bill read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos, on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson.
Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.04 a.m.]: I move:
That the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.05 a.m.]: I move:
That the question be amended by omitting "a later hour of the sitting" and inserting instead " Tuesday, 20 April 2010".
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 20
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Ms Parker Mr Brown Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Mr Cohen Mr Khan Mr Smith Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Harwin
Noes, 17
Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Mr Della Bosca Mr Primrose Mr West Mr Hatzistergos Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Moselmane Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Reverend Nile Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
21508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
Pairs
Mr Gallacher Ms Griffin Mrs Pavey Mr Macdonald
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion as amended agreed to.
CASINO CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Bill read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos, on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald.
Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
HISTORIC HOUSES AMENDMENT (THROSBY PARK HISTORIC SITE) BILL 2009
Message received from the Legislative Assembly returning the bill without amendment.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business items Nos 240, 241, 242 and 247 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
PETITIONS
Adoption Laws
Petition requesting that the Parliament reject any proposed legislation or amendments to adoption laws that would take away the fundamental human right of adopted children to be raised by both a mother and a father, received from the Hon. Marie Ficarra.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business items Nos 4, 15, 25, 33, 44, 45 and 56 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Robyn Parker.
Private Members' Business item No. 31 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Greg Pearce.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21509
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 240 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to Carramar Nursing Home, be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 240 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is placed on a call to order. Mr Ian Cohen has kindly drawn to my attention the fact that it was his mobile phone that was ringing. He is placed on a call to order, and I apologise to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.
CARRAMAR AGED CARE FACILITY, LEETON
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.20 a.m.]: I move:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) at a public meeting held in Leeton on Friday 5 March 2010 motions were passed that:
(i) condemned the Government's proposal to sell the beds in Carramar Nursing Home to a private provider,
(ii) called on this facility to remain in public hands,
(iii) called on the Minister for Health to delay any further decision on the sale of beds in Carramar Nursing Home to a private provider until she meets with representatives from Leeton Shire Council and the Carramar Carers' Group to discuss their concerns and the effect the sale would have on Leeton and the surrounding district,
(b) for the past year Carramar Carers' Group have expressed their concerns to the Government about the plan to sell off this facility,
(c) the Government's plan to sell beds, if implemented, will detrimentally affect residents and jeopardise the future of Leeton Hospital, and
(d) the community raised $750,000, half the cost of the Carramar Nursing Home, and that local groups supplied this facility with furnishings, fittings and equipment for the wellbeing and comfort of the residents.
2. That this House calls on the Minister for Health to delay any decision on the future of Carramar Nursing Home until she meets with representatives from Leeton Shire Council and the Carramar Carers' Group.
Today we are joined in the public gallery by more than 30 people from the Leeton region who have travelled to Sydney on a lengthy bus trip—some of them told me it took about eight hours—to inform Parliament why Carramar Nursing Home needs to stay in public hands. I thank members for allowing debate on this motion to proceed as a matter of urgency. The Carramar Carers' Group has worked tirelessly on this issue, and I congratulate all its members and their supporters on their work. They have alerted us to a most worrying development: this Government's increasing tendency to privatise a number of health facilities. Experience teaches us that when such facilities are privatised the users of those facilities and their loved ones, and indeed the staff, lose out. Public services should be precisely that: about providing a service to the public, not about making money.
The Greens strongly support the motions I have referred to that were passed at a public meeting in Leeton on 5 March, to the effect that Carramar Nursing Home must stay in public hands. It is worth noting how much this facility is very much based within the community. The facility has received incredible support from the very point when it was first devised. The community raised half the cost of the building—which I understand amounted to more than $750,000—and local groups and local residents have continued to put many 21510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
resources and much of their time into ensuring that the facility is run in a way that gives top priority to the wellbeing and comfort of residents. For the Government to bail out at this stage is simply unacceptable. I hope that when we hear from the Government representative on this motion he or she gives us a clear indication that the Government has listened to local residents and that it will do the right thing.
I understand that Minister Carmel Tebbutt has arranged for some of her representatives to meet with the Carramar Carers' Group and that the Minister may make some time to meet the group. I urge the Minister to meet the group in person. Obviously travelling from Leeton to the New South Wales Parliament is not something that people can do regularly, so some time on the part of the Minister is clearly warranted. I again place on record the Greens' position that any move by the Labor Government to privatise Carramar Nursing Home beds will detrimentally affect residents and jeopardise the future of Leeton Hospital. Unfortunately, there is a pattern here. As recently as late last year members of this House debated a motion concerning a Wallsend health facility. In that case the Government did the right thing: it listened to the concerns of local residents. I pay great credit to the people of Wallsend for their efforts in working with members of the Carramar Carers' Group and talking about their tactics and how they went about saving that important facility in Wallsend.
I also congratulate the Nurses Association, and particularly Rita Martin, on the support they are giving this campaign. It is very much a broad-based campaign, and I believe it deserves the support of all members of this House so a clear position can be sent to the Government that this facility needs to remain in public hands. We need to ensure that the Government today hears the voice of the local residents. Their voice is strong; now our voice has to be strong in support of them. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [11.26 a.m.]: I concur with what Ms Lee Rhiannon has said in relation to the Minister meeting with representatives from Leeton Shire Council and the Carramar Carers' Group. I understand they are meeting today. The New South Wales Government opposes the motion. The Government recognises the support from the Leeton community for Carramar Nursing Home and we are ensuring that concerns raised by the Leeton community are addressed in the process that is currently underway to determine whether to transfer Carramar and some other State-owned nursing homes to the non-government sector. Under this tender process, nursing homes currently run by NSW Health will not be transferred to the non-government sector unless the transfer will deliver better outcomes to the community.
Proposals for the transfer of State-owned nursing homes are subject to rigorous assessment and must meet strict criteria. These criteria include a strong commitment to ensure local communities' continued access to nursing homes currently operated by NSW Health. This recognises the high value that communities place on being able to access residential aged care services locally. There is also a guarantee process that services will not be diminished. Proposals for the transfer of nursing homes must demonstrate that they will meet this guarantee. As part of this, very careful planning is being undertaken to ensure that residents' ongoing care needs will be met, and decisions relating to a resident's future care arrangements will be made with their central involvement and in consultation with their family where that is appropriate.
The care and comfort of nursing home residents is extremely important to us. Transfer proposals will be accepted only if they meet all the transfer principles. Extensive consultation has been undertaken between key NSW Health staff, the area health service, residents and their families and carers, staff and community stakeholders, and Leeton Shire Council regarding the proposed transfer of Carramar Nursing Home. The New South Wales Government commends the Leeton community for raising $750,000 to add to the funding provided by the Government to meet the construction costs of Carramar. I also applaud the community's ongoing support for Carramar, as evidenced by its further donations of items aimed at improving the quality of life of nursing home residents. The New South Wales Government is very mindful of this community contribution and of the importance of this issue in evaluating any proposals put forward under the current process. If operational responsibility for the Leeton aged care service were to be transferred to another provider, the facility would simply continue to operate as a nursing home on the same campus as the hospital.
I am also advised that the respite beds at Carramar will continue to be provided whether operated by NSW Health or a non-government operator; under the Commonwealth's Aged Care Act 1997 all residential aged care facilities are required to operate a portion of aged care places for respite care. It is important to be clear about why the Government is investigating the transfer of State-owned nursing homes to the non-government sector. The non-government sector provides the vast majority of residential aged care in New South Wales. State-owned nursing homes represent 1.4 per cent of the mainstream residential aged care in this State. The residential aged care sector is also funded and regulated by the Commonwealth Government. State-owned nursing homes attract less Commonwealth funding than those operated by the non-government 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21511
sector despite providing the same services. The depth of experience of non-government providers enables them to provide quality care to all residents. That is why the New South Wales Government has been transferring State-owned nursing homes to the non-government sector for a number of years.
Decisions on the current tender process will be made in the next few months upon recommendations made to the Minister for Health. NSW Health is currently in the process of completing the evaluation of tender proposals for the transfer of 10 State nursing homes. This follows an interim evaluation, which found that proposals for the transfer of two other nursing homes at Wallsend and Murrumburrah Harden District Hospital had not satisfied all of the evaluation criteria and, as such, would not be transferred. The same evaluation criteria will apply to proposals for the remaining homes, including Carramar. It has always been the case that if a proposed transfer will not deliver a better overall outcome it will not proceed. Our top priority is to ensure continuing quality care for residents and to minimise any disruption during any transfer.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.31 a.m.]: As most members in this place would be aware, the Shooters Party and the Greens rarely see eye to eye on a broad range of issues. I can confirm that Leeton is at least an eight-hour bus trip from Sydney: I make that trip regularly. It is a long, hard trip. I shall place some salient points about Carramar Nursing Home onto the record to give members a better understanding. Carramar provides affordable entry into nursing care with no discrimination for low-income patients. The Riverina and Southern Riverina have had a hell of an economic run as a result of drought and the inability to sell crops such as rice, which has affected the whole community—the whole nine yards.
Carramar Nursing Home is currently the only operational nursing home in the Leeton district. Leeton is not a city; it is a country town. Only two beds are available for respite care, an absolute necessity in that district, and Carramar provides a good standard of care. I admit that I have not been to Carramar Nursing Home but the local member has told me that is the case. The building was an excellent design originally and well suited for its purpose, and it remains so today. It has been well maintained. The availability of trained staff is excellent. They are rotated through the hospital as well as Carramar. The location of an aged care facility on the campus of a hospital is a perfect example of synergy. In response to a question I asked of Minister Hatzistergos, representing the Minister for Health, I was pleased to hear him say that the intention is for that facility to stay on the campus and to engage with the hospital irrespective of what happens.
Carramar affords immediate access to the hospital's casualty department in the case of an emergency. Residents of aged care facilities require close access to medical assistance. Carramar residents have immediate access to the intensive care ward of the hospital, and have regular pastoral care visits. It is obvious why the residents are alarmed and concerned. Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about the Government's change of mind on the Wallsend facility. She suggested that if it carefully considered Carramar it could reach the same conclusion. The Leeton community has pumped $700,000-odd into this aged care facility. The Government should be mindful that the $700,000 is not handed over to a private operator as a windfall. I was also pleased to hear Minister Hatzistergos say in response to another question I asked of him representing the Minister for Health that the money would be taken into account. Despite the assurances of the Minister, the House should support Ms Lee Rhiannon's motion. The Shooters Party supports the motion.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [11.35 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of Family First in support of Ms Lee Rhiannon's motion. The Federal Government is constantly talking about the need to gain better facilities for our increasing population. Federally we are faced with a recommended inquiry into the expected increase in population by 2035 and the increased number of persons living in Australia over the age of 65 years. We all know the demographics. We all know we have more and more people living in this country, the greater percentage of which are becoming older as the baby boomers reach old age. An increased percentage of people are living longer, due to good health care, but are suffering increased health problems, particularly those over the age of 75 years. The closure of State-owned nursing homes and the desire of the Government to get the not-for-profit sector engaged in running nursing homes is a real trap. In order to get money from the private sector and to boost its own funds the Government is selling off all kinds of assets. Among those assets are government-owned nursing homes.
The Hon. Robert Brown spoke of the local capital funding of $750,000 that went into the Carramar nursing home. For many years I ran half a dozen different nursing homes, retirement centres and villages for more than 1,5000 people and I know that the capital cost is the least cost put into the ongoing running of nursing homes. The capital cost is less than half of what a community will put into the ongoing running of nursing homes. This will involve the use of volunteers and a number of persons involved in fundraising committees to raise money for the purchase of ongoing facilities to make elderly people more comfortable in their nursing 21512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
home or respite care beds. The Government wants to flick past the local support, volunteers and fundraising to the not-for-profit sector. When the not-for-profit sector takes over a nursing home such as Carramar it will not mean that Government support will continue—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member with the call will direct his comments through the Chair.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: Every move to get rid of a local nursing home to the not-for-profit sector does not mean that costs of the nursing home evaporate. The costs go to the not-for-profit sector, which means the organisation running the nursing home has to develop local community fundraising. Therefore if a not-for-profit sector decided to accept this sale it would have to set up fundraising immediately in the Leeton area to support the ongoing work of Carramar.
Maintenance and upgrading, and the rebuilding of nursing homes where necessary are major issues. All 10 nursing homes that the Government has been seeking to offload are reaching the end of their viable life, which will mean relocation and total reconstruction, which will cost a major amount of money. Aged care facilities face constantly changing government regulations to improve the safety, security and wellbeing of residents, and that means the upgrading of nursing homes from fire prevention measures to extending the width of doorways to entrances and shower facilities. All those things have to be upgraded. The only way the not-for-profit sector can get money to do this work is to raise it in the local community. The Government will not provide the money; local people will be urged to put more money into the upgrading of facilities in the aged care sector.
The Minister for Health must meet with the community members and carers who have come to Parliament House today. I congratulate them on their energy in coming here. I am concerned not only with the Leeton and Wallsend nursing homes, which we debated two weeks ago, but all 10 State nursing homes. If they are sold to private operators in the for-profit sector—who realise the changing demographics, which the Government seems to ignore, and the increasing demand for nursing home and respite beds in the future—fees will increase. Nursing homes such as Carramar accept concessional patients. Usually concessional patients cannot afford to pay additional fees and increases. The only way a for-profit organisation can gain money to upgrade facilities is by increasing fees. That is also the case in respect of respite beds.
Often, patients who do not have family, friends or support people who can pay the fees require respite beds. The net result is that the State Government avoids its responsibility of care for the aged by passing it on to either the not for-profit sector whose only resource of getting money is from the local community or the for-profit sector whose only way to gain income is from the patients. The Government says it wants to continue quality care. The only way the Government can continue to provide quality care is to ensure that the Government funds it. I support the Greens motion.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.42 a.m.]: On behalf of The Nationals and the Liberals, I indicate that we support the motion before the House. It is very sad that the Hon. Tony Catanzariti is not present in the House for this debate and that the Government has sent its most junior member of the House to put forward its case. As the folk from Leeton and district who have travelled to Parliament House today would be well aware, this debate started with the infamous mini-budget that was brought down in November 2008 by the Treasurer, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. Out of the blue came an announcement about Carramar, Wallsend and other facilities throughout the State. It came as a shock to communities such as Leeton, which set great store on their hospitals and aged care facilities.
The Nationals and the Liberals agree that the Minister for Health should delay any decision. She should set aside time today to meet with the delegation, which is in the parliamentary precincts. The campaign has been going on for a year or more. They did not have much success with the Hon. John Della Bosca, the then Minister for Health, who is sort of present in the Chamber today. A meeting today between the delegation and the Minister for Health would be a good outcome of this debate. The Carramar issue has been vigorously followed up with representations from The Nationals member for Murrumbidgee, Mr Adrian Piccoli. For the year or so that the debate has been underway the member has been engaged with the local community in trying to get some answers from the Government about its plans for the Carramar institution. For example, on 12 March 2009, a year ago, he asked questions in the House about the future plans for the Carramar facility following the revelation in the mini-budget that it was to be privatised.
Mr Adrian Piccoli asked the Minister whether the tender process would contain a guarantee that beds will not be lost and patient costs will not increase following any sell-off. He also asked if the sale of Carramar 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21513
occurred whether the profits would be split between the New South Wales Government and the Leeton community, given that the community had such a massive involvement in the provision and construction of the facility. Mr Adrian Piccoli also asked about the tender process and the timetable for that process. He said, "From the conversations I have had with people recently I know that these are some of the issues that are of most concern", and he asked for a proper answer to his questions. He followed up with further questions about the current land value of the facility as at March 2009. He received an answer from the Minister for Lands, the Hon. Tony Kelly, who advised:
The Carramar Aged Care Facility in Leeton forms part of the Leeton District Hospital site. It is not separately valued. The land value at 1st July 2008 for Leeton Park was $819,000.
On 1 June 2009 Mr Adrian Piccoli wrote to the then Minister for Health, the Hon. John Della Bosca, on behalf of Mr Neil Boardman, Chairperson of the Carramar Residents Committee. Mr Boardman informed Mr Della Bosca that the committee has been working tirelessly to protect Carramar, as it is considered to be a community asset. Mr Adrian Piccoli said:
With so much of the community's time, effort and money tied up in the facility (as you would be aware, the community of Leeton raised in the order of $700,000 to assist in the building of the unit), the possible privatisation of Carramar has created much angst throughout the community of Leeton.
Mr Adrian Piccoli advised Mr Della Bosca that many of the people on the committee that he had spoken to had relatives and friends at Carramar and he recently received a petition with 7,000 signatures opposing the privatisation. As he pointed out, from a town with a population of about 11,500, that is a very clear statement of opposition to this Government proposal. On behalf of Mr Boardman and the committee, he asked for a delegation to be received by the then Minister. He said:
The committee is particularly seeking a guarantee that there will be no loss of beds or jobs at Carramar. As you can see, the unit is an important community facility and we need to ensure it remains fully operational so residents of Leeton are able to keep their elderly in their own environment.
Keeping the elderly in their local community is a very important principle in the reorganisation of health services throughout the State. The petitions were not made in the usual parliamentary form. Mr Adrian Piccoli presented them to Minister Della Bosca and asked the Minister to write to the petitioners. I understand that did not happen. Then another Minister for Health was appointed, Minister Tebbutt. Continuing representations to the latest Minister have been to no avail, which is why the delegation from Leeton and district has come to Sydney and to Parliament House today. This letter is typical of the sorts of representations made to The Nationals member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli, from one of his constituents:
I am writing to you as my local member to seek your support in keeping the Carramar Nursing Home in Leeton in public hands. Neither the Premier nor the Minister for Health has inspected the facility nor met with residents or carers but they have decided anyway to sell off their beds.
Many residents in this facility have complex conditions to manage and they require special and highly trained staff. Private nursing homes are not required to provide the same levels of expertise that these people need and guaranteeing words like "quality" is rather meaningless without specific guarantees of staffing levels and the relevant expertise that would be needed.
We are required to abide by maximum staffing ratios in pre-schools but young adults and elderly people— such as those at the Wallsend facility that we have spoken about in this House before—
with complex ongoing needs need a particular standard of care.
On behalf of The Nationals and the Liberals, and particularly on behalf of the member for Murrumbidgee, I have pleasure in indicating our support for the motion. I urge the Minister for Health, in particular, to meet with the delegation whilst these good people from Leeton and district are in the parliamentary precinct today.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.51 a.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am very pleased to support the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. The motion embodies motions that were passed at a public meeting at Leeton on Friday 5 March that condemned the Government's proposal to sell the beds in the Carramar nursing home to a private provider, called on the facility to remain in public hands and called on the Minister for Health to delay any further decision on the sale of beds in Carramar nursing home to a private provider until she meets with representatives from the Leeton Shire Council and the Carramar Carers Group to discuss their concern and the effect that the sale would have on Leeton and the surrounding district. 21514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
By the vote in a moment it should be quite clear that the House is calling on the Government to cancel any plans for the sale of beds in the Carramar nursing home and to cancel any plans to privatise the Carramar Nursing Home—an outcome we successfully achieved in relation to the Wallsend nursing home, which, thankfully, continues to operate as it has for many years to the satisfaction of carers and residents. I am very anxious that this motion be put to a vote. I will conclude my remarks by calling on the Government to take note of this motion.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.53 a.m.]: As members in this Chamber would be aware, the vast majority of residential aged care in New South Wales is provided by the non-government sector. In fact, State-owned nursing homes represent just 1.4 per cent of mainstream residential aged care across the State. The reality is that responsibility for aged care facilities rests with the Commonwealth Government, not with the New South Wales Government. Over the years hundreds of aged care nursing home facilities were part of the State sector, but as responsibility has been taken over by the Commonwealth those facilities have been moved over to the non-government sector.
The Federal Government provides substantial funds for capital costs and the ongoing care of patients to the community sector and those non-government organisations. The non-government sector does not fund those facilities. I know that members want to vote on this motion so I will not take up too much time, but I thought it was important to raise the issue about the difference between State and Federal government responsibilities and how at the end of the day responsibility for aged care nursing home facilities rests with the Federal Government.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.54 a.m.], in reply: I thank all speakers who contributed to this debate. I believe the seriousness of the situation has been well set out and I commend the motion to the House.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 248 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to St Patrick's Day, be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 248 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
ST PATRICK'S DAY
Motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz agreed to:
That this House notes that:
(a) St Patrick's Day is celebrated worldwide on 17 March each year,
(b) St Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland and is the person celebrated on Ireland's National Day,
(c) in Australia, St Patrick's Day celebrations have taken place on 17 March since 1810, when the then Governor, Lachlan Macquarie, declared the date an official day of celebration for the Irish and those of Irish heritage,
(d) that 200 years later, this day is celebrated with an annual street parade and family day on the third Sunday of March, and this year on Sunday 21 March 2010, and
(e) commends the efforts of the Irish-Australian community volunteers who work tirelessly to organise St Patrick's Day in Australia. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21515
CREDIT (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 16 March 2010.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.56 a.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2010, including the Hon. Catherine Cusack, Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Lynda Voltz. The bill refers power to the Commonwealth to regulate the consumer, credit and financial broking markets. It also retains some of the strong New South Wales laws that will continue to provide consumers with protection in New South Wales until the full Commonwealth legislation commences. The bill marks a milestone in the advancement of the Council of Australian Governments reform process to create a seamless national economy. The bill will also resolve the anomaly of consumer credit and broking being regulated by the States while the Commonwealth exercises regulatory responsibility for all other financial products.
I will make some comments in relation to issues raised during the debate. The Hon. Catherine Cusack commented on how long it took the States to develop financial broking legislation. These reforms were delayed by the former Howard Government, which constantly obstructed the States' attempts to introduce swiftly nationally consistent legislation. This was despite a policy response agreed to by all reputable industry members and consumer advocates, and clear evidence of dodgy brokers securing loans for consumers across Australia, which they simply could not repay, and commanding huge fees as well as getting commissions from lenders.
In regard to the comments made about the New South Wales Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, all members of the tribunal who deal with credit applications are legally qualified. I understand that the Consumer Credit Legal Centre has made it clear that it supports the role of the tribunal in determining credit disputes and is on the public record in this regard. Despite the concerns of the Hon. Catherine Cusack about tribunal matters going to appeal in the Supreme Court, I understand that in the past two financial years, 2007-08 and 2008-09, 433 applications in the tribunal related to credit and only two went to appeal. I believe that works out at about 0.005 per cent of the applications being appealed. I also point out that since the beginning of 2008, tribunal decisions are appealed to the District Court and not the Supreme Court—a far less costly prospect for consumers who make the decision to appeal a tribunal decision.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack also made comments about broking. The current New South Wales broking laws have been in place since 2003, and the reason the Government is keeping them is that the Commonwealth is not introducing its full broking requirements until 1 January 2011. None of the New South Wales requirements will overlap with the Commonwealth laws in that time. The bill also safeguards this State's capacity to impose taxes and duties and to regulate other aspects of mortgages that could unintentionally be caught up in the referral. This is a permanent protection for as long as the referral lasts.
Dr John Kaye referred to the New South Wales maximum interest rate cap. One of the reasons the cap was introduced was to protect vulnerable consumers from exploitation by fringe lenders who lent money in the full knowledge that consumers could not repay it because of the short timeframe, the high cost of the loan and huge default fees or loan rollover fees. The result of such practices was that consumers ended up with huge debts that they had no chance of repaying. At that stage they were forced to seek help elsewhere or to declare bankruptcy, which, of course, could mean they had no capacity to borrow for many years.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General recall indicating to the House on 11 March that he would not publicly disclose information about when an outlaw motorcycle gang would be declared illegal—a declaration that had not yet been made despite urgent legislation being passed in April and then amended in May last year? Given his strident declaration just six days ago that anyone wanting him to disclose that information publicly was 21516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
"extremely naive", and given that today's Sydney Morning Herald claims that police are about to lodge an application to declare two outlaw motorcycle gangs illegal when we are about to mark the first anniversary of the Sydney airport brawl, can the Attorney General update the House?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I stand by what I said on that occasion. There were so many uses of the phrases "it is believed", "it is understood" and "possibly" in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald that I think the honourable member can draw his own conclusions. I certainly do not want to comment on the editorial decisions of the Sydney Morning Herald. I do note that they have used an enormous amount of time in recent weeks in columns discussing the various positions in which baby elephants are delivered. Such are the priorities these days of the Sydney Morning Herald. However, that is a matter for the editor and the people who write for that newspaper. I make no comment about that.
The Government has offered the Opposition a confidential briefing on this issue. As I said, it is important that people be circumspect in their comments or speculation. I will use this opportunity to comment on the legislation, if I may, because I recall the Opposition's answer to gangs provided in the other place by the Leader of the Opposition. When this issue arose just under a year ago, the Leader of the Opposition's solution to the problem of gangs was:
I would have no problem if you put all the outlaw motorcycle gang members in two rooms and allowed them to shoot themselves to death.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: Who said that?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That was what Barry O'Farrell said on 2 April 2009 in the Legislative Assembly. During debate on the bill, the member for Epping said:
…the criminal intelligence that is used to ground the declaration is not accessible to the person or organisation that is the subject of the application
In other words, he wants criminal intelligence to be released. He also said:
The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009 is extraordinary in that it takes away citizens' powers… I do not think sufficient provision has been made to enable people to defend themselves.
On 4 May he said on 2GB:
I am puzzled as to why they really need that power.
On 3 May, the member for Epping said that these new powers were "window-dressing". The Leader of the Opposition in the other place thought these powers would be better exercised if we were to put all outlaw motorcycle gang members in two rooms and allowed them to shoot themselves to death. The member for Epping saw a problem with the legislation because the criminal intelligence is not accessible to the person who is the subject of it. He also said that it removed citizens' rights and that insufficient provision had been included to allow people to defend themselves. On 4 May, he said that he was puzzled about the need to provide that power, and he described the powers as window dressing. If members of the Opposition are serious in their interest in this matter, I suggest they take up the offer extended to them last week, which so far they have declined to do.
STATE ECONOMY
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest economic data?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am pleased that the honourable member has asked this important question because, yet again, I can confirm the improvement in the green shoots of our economy with more good economic news for New South Wales. Members opposite are depressed because they do not like to hear good news.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You are in front of us—that is why we are depressed.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am not wearing the puppy shirt. In breaking news—it was released just 30 minutes ago—the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] has provided the latest home construction data. It shows that New South Wales is again leading the States, this time in the growth of housing 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21517
construction commencements for the December 2009 quarter. Today's ABS figures show that housing starts in New South Wales jumped by 16.5 per cent in the December 2009 quarter, seasonally adjusted, compared to the previous quarter. That is more than the increase in any other State. The national average increase was 15.1 per cent for the same period. The increase in Victoria was 15.6 per cent.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Tell us about your success with unemployment. This State is leading the Commonwealth.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised unemployment, because I have noticed that the David Clarke employment program is continuing. Indeed, the extreme Right continues to roll over the Liberal Party and to undermine Barry O'Farrell.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: I am very interested in the fact that the Treasurer is dealing with ancient history by referring to building statistics from last year. He could not answer a question about the current figures on finance yesterday when I asked him—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Those statistics were released this morning. That growth in commencements is particularly evident in Drummoyne. It is an interesting area to consider because I understand that the Hon. David Clarke has been very successful in that area with John Sidoti, his latest candidate, beating the Hawke man Scott Farlow.
The Hon. Don Harwin: You should sack your researcher.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This has been reported by respected ABC journalist Mark Tobin.
[Interruption]
Did you lose, David? Did the Daily Telegraph get it wrong? I will go with the ABC report. The battle occurring in the Liberal Party between the extreme Right and the small "l" Liberals is continuing. Mark Tobin reported it recently on the ABC.
The Hon. Don Harwin: You will have to sack your researcher, Eric.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: You and Catherine have already sold your souls, Don! Apparently the Liberal Party is planning to run a candidate in the electorate of Orange. They have decided to shaft The Nationals and run a candidate in Orange. Russell Turner is quitting and the Liberals have written off The Nationals and are planning to run their own candidate. I am advised that the edict came straight from Mark Neeham, the State Director of the Liberal Party. That underlines the fact that The Nationals are the dead party walking—unlike the New South Wales economy, which is continuing to show the green shoots of recovery. [Time expired.]
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer elucidate his answer?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We are seeing the New South Wales economy grow from strength to strength. Indeed, this morning the Westpac Melbourne Institute Leading Index was released. The index shows the national economic outlook has again improved. The index indicates the likely pace of economic activity three to nine months into the future. The leading index annualised growth rate was up 6.3 per cent in December, well above its long-term trend growth of 2.7 per cent. The index rose a further 0.2 per cent for the month of January. Expectations for growth over the coming months until September this year have improved. As Westpac's senior economist, Matthew Hassan, said:
After rising sharply over the second half of 2009, the Leading Index continues to point to strong momentum carrying into 2010.
This is more good news for the New South Wales economy. No matter how hard the Opposition tries to interject and stop me talking about the good news, promoting the green shoots of recovery, we will continue to talk up the State and talk up the economy. We know consumer sentiment is improving. We know business sentiment is 21518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
improving. We know we lead on State final demand. We know we lead with these latest statistics out today. We know we have had a reduction in unemployment. New South Wales continues to lead Australia through the recovery stage.
DEVELOPER LEVIES
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Lands. Is the Minister aware that developers have publicly stated they are doing business interstate because they are less aggressively taxed in those States? If developers are reluctant to build because of the taxes and levies imposed on them, will the Minister explain what investigations he has made into what impact a reduction in levies would have? Would a reduction in levies not be a more appropriate course to assist in bringing new housing to the market rather than seizing people's homes to push in more medium-density developments?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: There must be a time warp on that side of the House. The Hon. Greg Pearce kept interjecting on the Treasurer, suggesting that his answer related to something 12 months ago, and the Hon. Duncan Gay obviously neglected to notice that last year the Treasurer reduced developer levies. In the growth areas where the New South Wales Government has developer levies, the Treasurer last year reduced them by 50 per cent. The Government is contributing that amount. We have also abolished developer levies in the Sydney Water and Hunter Water areas. The New South Wales Government is only collecting 50 per cent of the developer levies that it used to.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Why are the developers still concerned?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will get to that. The reason they are concerned is that the local council development levies are significant in a lot of areas. Last year the Government announced it would put a cap on those levies of $20,000. Some councils have applied to go over that cap of $20,000. I know one council has a development levy of $75,000 in its area, and $65,000 for a unit. Councils have to ask the Department of Planning and me to approve anything above $20,000. I can tell you, we are stringently looking at them.
ELECTRICITY PRICE RISES
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Energy. Is the Minister aware that EnergyAustralia, Integral Energy and Country Energy are expected to generate a further $5.3 billion in government earnings between now and 2012-13? Is the Minister aware of the soaring electricity prices that are forcing working families into fuel poverty as they seek an increasing number of payment extensions over their electricity bills in New South Wales? In particular, is the Minister aware that EnergyAustralia has an extra 36,000 customers on bill extension or payment plans, and Integral Energy has 19,000 more customers on assistance schemes? Given the massive profits of the three energy companies and the huge burden of price increases on household budgets, why are working families paying for the New South Wales Government's lack of investment and maintenance in the State's electricity infrastructure and not benefiting from government subsidies in their fuel bills?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The New South Wales Government is deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed price rises and the effect they will have on New South Wales customers. It is important to note that the independent regulator, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, sets electricity prices. The Government has made a submission to the tribunal to set the final regulated prices at a level that is no more than required to ensure the ongoing financial viability of the New South Wales standard electricity retailers.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What would that do?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: As shadow Minister the Hon. Duncan Gay ought to know, and it is probably a reflection on him and his incapacity to understand how the electricity industry works that he would interject with a question like that. If prices are not set at levels that reflect the cost of production, retailers may go broke. More than $272 million in customer assistance is being rolled out over five years to reduce the impact of price increases, including direct financial assistance through rebates and emergency payment vouchers. We have expanded and increased the energy rebate for pensioners plus select health-care cardholders. This rebate now provides $130 a year off electricity bills and will increase in line with inflation from 1 July 2010 and each year thereafter. A new medical energy rebate commenced on 1 January 2010, providing $130 a year to people with medical conditions who need extra heating and cooling at home to stay well, and last year the Government boosted funding for the life-support rebate and added two new machines to the scheme. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21519
We have also introduced tough new regulations at the beginning of this month that make it harder for energy companies to disconnect customers and require that everyone be afforded two opportunities to pay their bills over a 12-month period. It is important to note that in 2008-09 the rate of electricity disconnections remained unchanged from the previous year at 0.6 per cent. It is worth reinforcing that point—it is 0.6 per cent. More recently, EnergyAustralia has reported a 5 per cent drop in customers being disconnected for non-payment of their electricity account over the past nine months. I assure the House that the New South Wales Government will continue to work hard to reduce the impact of electricity price rises on New South Wales families and small businesses through effective consumer protection measures.
VINEGAR HILL RESERVE
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for St Patrick's Day. What is the Government doing to preserve the site of the Australian Battle of Vinegar Hill?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The question is clearly out of order. We do not have a Minister for St Patrick's Day.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay is correct: the New South Wales Government does not have a Minister for St Patrick's Day. However, I will allow the Deputy Leader of the Government to answer the question.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing interest in Irish-Australian history, and I will say something about St Patrick's Day in a moment. It gives me great pleasure today, on the feast of Saint Patrick, to advise members of moves to ensure an important piece of Australian and Irish history is protected and preserved for generations to come. Each year in early March a gathering takes place within the grounds of Castlebrook Cemetery, which is privately owned, to mark the anniversary of the Battle of Vinegar Hill. The Battle of Vinegar Hill, named after the famous Irish battle of 1798, took place early in the morning of 5 March 1804 in and around Rouse Hill in north-west Sydney.
With the typical irony of an Irish-Australian event it marks an unmitigated disaster—more massacre than battle—but an historic moment where the yearning for liberty and equality amongst largely Irish convicts manifested itself into open rebellion. Many convict lives were lost and other convicts were severely punished and sent to work in the new coalmines opening up at the new settlement of Coal River, which is presently known as Newcastle. But rising out of the disaster was a spirit of freedom, a hope for a better life, freed from the shackles of British tyranny.
It stirred a feeling within the people, a feeling that would, along with the Eureka stockade, self-government and the emergence of the labour movement, act as important signposts in the maturation of the colony into nationhood. The monument to this battle, unveiled by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1988, is of tremendous significance to the history of the nation. At this year's commemoration I announced that the monument to those who fought and lost that morning, and the legacy that bequeathed to the nation, would shortly become a dedicated public reserve. The dedication, under the Crown Lands Act 1989, will put this site on par with our national parks and other iconic sites such as Bondi Beach, the War Memorial at Hyde Park and the Cenotaph at Martin Place. By dedicating this site we are not only reaffirming its historic significance but also ensuring that it remains preserved and protected under public guardianship. It will have the guardianship of Parliament and the oversight of the people of New South Wales.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a private cemetery and I particularly thank the owners of Castlebrook Cemetery, Invocare Pty Ltd, for their cooperation in allowing the site to be dedicated land as a historic site and returned to public hands. I add that they have done that free of charge; they have donated the land to the Crown. The Land and Property Management Authority is currently negotiating a management framework, which will see the cooperative management of the site by both Castlebrook Cemetery and the Minister for Lands. This will ensure that the site is preserved, maintained and accessible within the dignified confines of a privately owned operational cemetery.
The Vinegar Hill Dedicated Reserve will ensure that the site, the monument and the story it tells are not lost in time and that the memory and aspirations of those Irish convicts, among the first settlers in the new colony of New South Wales who had the courage to take up arms against prejudice and tyranny, are maintained and preserved for generations to come. This year the Hon. Ian West and the Leader of the House in the other place, the Hon. John Aquilina, attended the celebration. 21520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
I point out that St Patrick's Day is not always observed on 17 March. The calendar allows for it to be observed on a different day when there is a significant holy ceremony or solemnity, such as Holy Week. In fact, it was celebrated on a different day in 1940 and in 2008, when it was celebrated on 15 March. However, those waiting in earnest for the next occasion when St Patrick's Day will not be celebrated on 17 March will have to wait until 2160.
SCHOOL ETHICS PILOT SCHEME
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training, Verity Firth, a question without notice. Is it a fact that parents and teachers are very concerned over the promotion of the new atheistic ethics course in public schools, such as Bungendore Public School? Is this ethics course being promoted as an ethics-based complement to scripture, which is confusing parents, as it is not co-scripture but no scripture? Is this ethics course not only being promoted to children whose parents opt out of scripture but to all children in years 5 and 6 in direct competition with the traditional lawful scripture classes? Will the Government cancel this ethics pilot scheme and conduct a total review before it causes further confusion in New South Wales public schools?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware of the intricate details of the member's question, although I believe that scripture does have a very strong ethical underpinning. I know that others would disagree with that, but that is my view. I do not necessarily regard ethics and scripture to be in competition; I regard them very much as complementary, and I think that would be the view of a large number of members of the community. I do recall when I was the Minister responsible for prisons that the Greens wanted me to have a chaplain for atheists in the prison system. One can just imagine the prisoners queuing up for that one! I will take the question on notice and refer it to the Minister.
PROCUREMENT POLICY
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Energy, and Minister for Public Sector Reform. Is the Minister aware of the Auditor-General's repeated criticism of the Government's procurement policies and performance, including the failure of agencies to use State Contract Control Board contracts and their failure to use Smartbuy, eProcurement and eTendering to drive efficient delivery of services, productivity and cost savings? What action has the Minister taken to implement the Auditor-General's recommendation in relation to his department's inadequate procurement performance and to implement a review mechanism to ensure agencies comply with the Government's procurement policies?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: One of the things that I have done is to ensure that the Government is working hard to move towards the formal establishment of those particular matters. I have undertaken to do a review of the procurement processes to make sure that we do all that is required to get value for money. As Minister for Commerce, one of the key things I consider very important is to ensure that we get value for money for New South Wales taxpayers whenever we are letting contracts and procuring goods and services. It is crucial to ensure that the Government is using all its capacity and purchasing power to get value for money in procurement areas, such as advertising or personal computers.
It is worth noting that the value of purchases from State contracts was $3.6 billion in the 2008-09 financial year. This was a marginal reduction of 1.7 per cent on the previous year, which is the result of current economic conditions and subsequent spending cuts. There has been noticeably lower expenditure on motor vehicles and computers. Motor vehicle lease periods in a number of cases are being extended, leading to a reduction in new purchases. Also, the State Contracts Control Board approved the delegation of some functions to NSW Health and, as a result, the contract management of all health contracts has been transferred from New South Wales procurement contracting services to NSW Health. As I said earlier, procurement is a very important feature of Commerce, and I have undertaken to do a review.
WINE INDUSTRY
The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Can the Minister inform the House on how the New South Wales Government is helping the State's small businesses in the wine industry improve their management skills?
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I thank the member for his question, which is certainly a timely one. As members would be aware, this week is New South Wales Wine Week and I am pleased to report the wine 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21521
industry in New South Wales is in good shape. Our local wine industry is dominated by small, family owned and run businesses that are vital economic contributors in many regional communities. These businesses make an important contribution to the State's economy, as well as providing some great quality wines to consumers here and abroad.
The last decade, however, has not been the kindest to Australian wine producers, who have had to cope with restricted prices, overproduction, changing consumer tastes and competition from international producers such as New Zealand and Chile. On top of this, there has been consolidation within the retail sector, which has reduced margins as well as environmental challenges, such as drought and severe storms. The New South Wales Government has always been a champion of the wine industry in this State, and we will continue to encourage local producers into the future. The New South Wales wine industry is Australia's second largest, with a 34 per cent market share. It supports an estimated 20,000 direct and non-direct jobs in vineyard, winery, wholesaling, and support operations. We have about 450 New South Wales wineries across 14 official wine regions, including the Hunter, Australia's oldest wine region dating back to the 1820s.
As I said earlier, our local wine industry is dominated by small, family owned and run businesses that are vital economic contributors to many regional communities. Small businesses like these are the backbone of the New South Wales economy and it is their interests that we have at heart. That is why we have launched a new business development and mentoring program specifically targeted at small, boutique-type winemakers in New South Wales. The program, which will be offered from May, is called Building a Profitable, Sustainable Wine Business. It is part of Industry and Investment NSW's Stepping Up business skills development programs. The tailor-made program runs over two days. It will contain workshops on current business issues, such as building better business models, managing innovation, and building direct relationships with consumers using new technology.
Mentoring forms a key part of the program. Participants are matched with a more experienced business owner, who will provide advice on how to overcome hurdles and pursue new opportunities and markets. Mentoring is clearly an effective and valuable source of business advice and training, and an important means by which business practices are improved. It is also flexible enough to overcome the wide geographic distribution and limited time available for business skills development among small business owners. The program's goal will be to help participants resolve identified business issues or pursue opportunities for expansion, such as increasing sales within our own State. In fact, New South Wales wines still represent only 7.3 per cent of total bottled wine sales in our State, while in South Australia drinking habits are closer to home, with 38 per cent of bottled wine sold there coming from that State.
My colleague the Minister for State and Regional Development announced earlier this week that the New South Wales Government has extended its support for the New South Wales Wine Strategy until 2012. The New South Wales Wine Strategy aims to build awareness of and support for New South Wales wine, and has seen the implementation of a range of initiatives including New South Wales Wine Week. And the strategy appears to be working: Neilsen data provided to the New South Wales Wine Industry Association shows off-premise sales of New South Wales bottled wine have grown by $16.8 million in New South Wales since the strategy was launched in February 2008.
FILM CLASSIFICATION
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Attorney General. Given his recent announcement on changes to child pornography laws, citing the need for uniform laws and the need for New South Wales laws to match those of the Commonwealth, and that classification of an item by Federal authorities will be the ultimate designation of questionable material, can the Attorney General explain why the same need for uniform laws and the certainty of Federal classification does not apply to the popular X-rated film category in New South Wales, given that two recent surveys show that over a million adults regularly purchase these products in New South Wales?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In relation to the first part of the question, the laws are not uniform but they are modelled on the Commonwealth laws. The classification exemption exists in relation to items that are submitted for classification by the classification authorities. If an item is refused classification, it could potentially come under the State laws. If no classification is sought, so that the item is not classified, it could also come under the State laws. I had difficulty understanding the second part of the question, so I will take that on notice. In relation to the legislation, it will come up for debate in due course. 21522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Can the Attorney General elucidate his answer with respect to why it is legal to purchase and possess X-rated material in this State but it is not legal to sell it? How can a jail sentence be justified for selling anything that is legal under Commonwealth law?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In relation to films, the matter has been the subject of debate in this House on a number of occasions. The issue of whether material is sold that should not be sold is ultimately a matter for the police.
TRANSPORT PLAN
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Given that the Government was negotiating a 35-year integrated metro operation public-private partnership to cover the financing of rolling stock, stations, tracks, systems, and the operation of maintenance for the CBD metro, how can the Treasurer say his Government's transport plan is fully funded when the funds allocated from the recently scrapped CBD metro included a large proportion from the private sector?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am more than happy to discuss our fully funded $50.2 billion transport plan, because it is being released and demonstrates that this Government has a serious plan for the future of transport in Sydney. We see a consistent strategy by the Opposition to talk down the economy and the future of the State. Let us talk about transport plans. We are clear that we are delivering for the future of Sydney. What does the Coalition have to offer? I am sure I tuned in the other day to hear the Leader of the Opposition still banging on about the fact that the Coalition is going to build the South West Rail Link. I thought, "That's interesting", because we are building the South West Rail Link. Indeed, it is being built right now. Members opposite know that the Hon. David Clarke and the Hon. Marie Ficarra have spent their time in Drummoyne helping John Sidoti, so they would not know where the south-west is; they would not know that the South West Rail Link is being built. I am reliably informed that John Sidoti did win that ballot and defeat the small "l" candidate. Another win for David Clarke, another win for the extreme Right, and another loss for small "l" Liberals!
We have made it clear that the transport plan is fully funded through a re-allocation of the balance of funding from the $5 million CBD metro, changes to the weight tax of motor vehicles to favour the use of public transport and lighter vehicles, and additional budget funding for transport over the next 10 years. We have a fully funded transport plan that will deal with the challenges of the delivery of transport in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney. That includes the Western Express line, which will improve public transport for the western part of Sydney. That is our commitment; we are out there doing all this.
I can talk about our commitment to light rail, which will substantially change the way people use light rail in the Sydney central business district. Sydney, as the international city of Australia, should have all these modes of transport. We have a comprehensive transport plan. What does the Coalition have? I remember what it has! It has the itty-bitty, small target strategy. That is what the Coalition has—Barry O'Farrell curled up like a little ball into that small target. That is what the Coalition has. That is why Tony Abbott described Barry O'Farrell as lazy, with his small target strategy.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There are too many interjections coming from the Opposition.
ABUSE OF OLDER PEOPLE
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. Will he update the House on what is being done to reduce abuse of older people in our community?
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Why don't you ask a question about Leeton?
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: Why don't you get your facts right?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Tony Catanzariti for his important question. As a civilised society, our chief obligation must be to protect the most vulnerable in our community. And some of the most vulnerable members of the community are older people. The Government is committed to safeguarding the welfare of older people in this State, and I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House our efforts in that regard. Obviously there is a range of different types of behaviour that, by their nature, constitute abuse of our most vulnerable citizens. This includes physical or sexual assault, which can constitute a crime. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21523
Other types of behaviour to which older people may be vulnerable, such as financial exploitation, may also be prosecuted as theft or fraud. The New South Wales Government considers it just as important to be proactive in delivering advice and assistance to ensure that older people do not get into the position of being victims of crime.
The Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales runs a dedicated Older Person's Legal and Education Unit. Together with the Aged Care Rights Service, this unit began delivering a targeted education program in April 2008. The program provides one-to-one legal advice and education for the broader community on key legal issues affecting older people, and develops initiatives to enhance the access of disadvantaged older people to free or pro bono legal assistance. The Aged Care Rights Service also provides free legal advice and assistance for older people in a range of areas of law, and is easily accessible over the phone or Internet. The Older Person's Legal and Education Unit has produced six plain-language brochures on legal issues for older people, and they are available in English, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and Arabic.
The ill-treatment of older citizens falls into two main categories: financial exploitation, often sadly by family members; and physical abuse, including neglect. Specifically in relation to financial matters, the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian provide a range of services for older people and their carers or guardians. The Trustee and Guardian run a telephone information line to inform older people and families about guardianship and power of attorney protocols. In addition, the Trustee and Guardian operate an extensive advice program on financial exploitation as part of annual Senior's Week. To support the continued development of expertise in law relating to older members of the community, the Government has established and continues to support the chair in elder law at the University of Western Sydney.
When it comes to physical abuse and neglect, Victims Services New South Wales operates 22-hour free face-to-face counselling sessions for older victims of abuse in their local areas. Added to that, Victims Services operates a victim's access line that delivers telephone support and referrals for older victims of abuse or carers. The access line can refer callers in crisis to local aged care assessment teams made up of doctors, nurses, social workers and other health professionals, which can provide health and safety assessments as the basis for further action. This is in addition to the domestic violence helpline run by the Department of Community Services, which all people affected by violence within the home, including older people, may call for free counselling, information, advice and practical assistance such as emergency accommodation. I am proud that the New South Wales Government is delivering real, practical support to the older citizens of this State who face financial or physical exploitation. Our duty is to protect those most vulnerable; our society demands no less.
HILLTOP REGIONAL SHOOTING COMPLEX
The Hon. ROY SMITH: I direct my question without notice to the Hon. Ian Macdonald, who is not present in the Chamber but perhaps the Hon. Tony Kelly will take it in his absence, representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I congratulate the New South Wales Government on the recent approval granted for the Hilltop Regional Shooting Complex but I ask the Minister to advise when construction will commence. Given that Illawarra shooters have been waiting for over 30 years for such a facility, when will the construction be completed and when will shooters be able to use the new facilities?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for his question. In the absence of the Hon. Ian Macdonald I will pass that question on to the Minister for Sport and Recreation for a response.
FEDERAL HEALTH PLAN
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer. Given the trend that New South Wales is still not receiving its fair share of GST revenue from the Federal Government, will the Minister assure the people of New South Wales that they will not be once again short-changed because of the Prime Minister's plan to take 30 per cent of GST revenue to fund proposed changes to public hospital funding plans? Will the plans of the Federal Government for the reform of public hospitals add another layer of bureaucracy rather than address the real problem of a lack of frontline staff as articulated to Mr Rudd, for example, only this week by Queanbeyan Base Hospital clinicians?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Look at that lip movement.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is like Elvis. 21524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Elvis was a great man. It would not be relevant to the question but I am happy to talk about Elvis—a true pop culture icon. The Government recognises that the pressure on the nation's health system is building and reform is necessary to achieve a sustainable model of public health delivery into the future. That is why the New South Wales Government has welcomed the move by the Commonwealth Government to bring about fundamental change in our hospital system. For far too long the poisonous politics of the Howard Government was an insurmountable obstacle to real health reform. The Government believes that genuine engagement between the Commonwealth and State governments can give the citizens of New South Wales a more responsive health system to better meet their needs and future demands, and we look forward to working with the Commonwealth to that end.
This Government's number one priority is to ensure that any new model for health care delivery is in the best interests of New South Wales. The Premier wants to ensure that everyone in New South Wales has a chance to have their say on an issue that is so critically important to our lives. The New South Wales Government will continue to consult widely to ensure that it takes a position at the Council of Australian Governments that best meets the needs of the families of New South Wales. A discussion paper has been released that outlines the possible implications and impact of the Federal Government's health reforms on New South Wales funding, service delivery and workforce. A public submissions process has been opened to allow community members to make their own written submissions on both the Commonwealth's proposals and the State's discussion paper through an online forum.
Our consultation process also included a working seminar, bringing together more than 60 doctors, nurses, primary care providers, academics and consumers from across the State, including rural, regional and metropolitan communities, to canvass the key issues raised in the Prime Minister's proposal. I am advised that it was a very productive seminar and participants identified a number of key points that need to be considered to ensure best possible health care in the future.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: "Very productive", is that what you call it?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I was not there but a number of people who were have told me what a valuable process it was. Above all we need a system focused on patients that is flexible and equitable. The Government is committed to working with our clinicians throughout this process. The service delivery responsibilities of the New South Wales Government do not start and end with health. A health system fix that imperils other essential services is no real fix at all. The Government is carefully considering the Commonwealth's proposed package and assessing whether or not it will leave New South Wales better off. That is why the Government posed questions to the Commonwealth about the reform proposal, the effect on State finances and its relationship to the taxation system. Explanations from the Commonwealth on those matters will give the people of New South Wales confidence that these proposals are in the best interests of the people of this State.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENERGY INITIATIVES
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Energy. Will the Minister update the House about some of the environmental initiatives the Government is supporting in its energy corporations?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The New South Wales Government is committed to reducing its environmental footprint, and the programs of EnergyAustralia are a great example of this initiative at work. Over the past financial year more than $133 million has been invested in projects to reduce the impact of the operations of EnergyAustralia. A number of projects and programs are currently underway that will go towards protecting the local environment, reducing carbon emissions and supporting the local community. One such project commenced in 2007, whereby EnergyAustralia began a three-year rollout of mobile field computers to its field-based workers. I am advised that to date approximately 1,000 computers have been rolled out, with another 250 to be delivered over the next three months. Once this rollout is complete it is estimated over 2.4 million pages of paper will be saved each year.
As well as the use of resources being reduced, a number of steps have been taken to make sure other precious resources are being recycled. In 2008-09 more than 60,000 tonnes of vegetation was recycled for mulch or compost—that equates to 94 per cent of all trees trimmed across the EnergyAustralia network; 1,200 old power poles were recycled or re-used for floors, posts or doorways in homes—timber poles have been 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21525
re-used in a cafe and amenities building in a park in Ryde and a community lookout at Port Botany; and 25,000 old service wires that connected our homes to the electricity network were returned to EnergyAustralia depots for recycling.
One hundred per cent GreenPower is being purchased to match the energy use across all of EnergyAustralia's operations, that is, 75 offices, depots and buildings across the State. It also includes the 1.7 kilometres tunnel that has been built under our city streets, a major new zone substation at Kogarah, and new regional headquarters on the Central Coast and in the Hunter. I am also pleased to inform the House that EnergyAustralia now uses energy efficient compact fluorescent lights [CFL] as the default light for its entire street lighting network. That is 250,000 streetlights across Sydney, the Hunter and the Central Coast. This energy efficient compact fluorescent light is approximately 40 per cent more energy efficient compared to the standard 80 watt lamp. It also provides about 30 per cent better light and lasts longer. Furthermore, a project to cut water used for washing trucks at EnergyAustralia's Homebush depot is saving 765,000 litres of water a year.
As we speak, another 85 projects under EnergyAustralia's environmental improvement plan are being delivered. This has involved an extensive audit of waste and energy sites in order to inform new projects of strategies to further reduce any environmental impact from EnergyAustralia's operations. EnergyAustralia is also playing a part in corporate social responsibility. Over the last six months of 2009, almost 100 community organisations each received a $300 grant after being nominated by EnergyAustralia staff. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Newcastle Dad's in Distress, Gymea Junior Rugby League Football, Kurri Kurri Early Childhood Centre, as well as surf life saving clubs from Sydney to the Hunter are all worthy local community groups to receive support. These programs to support the community and protect the environment are just part of the reason that EnergyAustralia topped the Corporate Responsibility Index as the best performing company in Australia and New Zealand for the past two years. With the Government's strong support of renewable energy and energy efficiency, New South Wales will continue to be a leader in encouraging the use of GreenPower.
YANGA NATIONAL PARK
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. The Yanga National Park has now been operational for more than four years and has had millions of dollars spent on capital works, administration and staffing of the park. Does the park operate under a management plan? If not, when will a management plan be finalised and implemented?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I will take that question on notice and undertake to provide an answer to the Hon. Robert Brown.
FAIRFIELD COUNCIL LAND ACQUISITION
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Infrastructure. Has the Mayor of Fairfield city and member for Cabramatta made any representations to the Minister on behalf of the owner of 61 Canley Vale Link Road to reclassify part of Adams Reserve and allow a land swap, despite a council resolution to compulsorily acquire the land?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Mayor of Fairfield has not met with me on this matter. The acting Planning Assessment Commissioner and the Director General of the Department of Planning have carriage of this issue and I will be directed by their decision.
HOUSING INDUSTRY
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest New South Wales housing sector data?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane for his question and interest in this matter. I have already spoken about more good news for the New South Wales housing sector, and I will now outline to members the importance of the New South Wales residential housing sector, which is worth around $17.8 billion to the New South Wales economy every year and accounts for about 5 per cent of the State economy. Let us look at the facts. New South Wales construction activity grew by 2.4 per cent in the December 2009 quarter—better than that of Queensland, which was down, and Western Australia. This means that New South Wales saw $8.9 billion in construction activity in the last three months of last year. On a trend 21526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
basis, construction work in New South Wales has now increased for nine consecutive quarters. New South Wales residential building approvals grew by 3.4 per cent for January 2010, and by 94.8 per cent compared to the same time a year ago.
The housing and construction sector is vital to the New South Wales economy, particularly in supporting jobs. That is why we are supporting the recovery of the housing sector through a number of initiatives. A 50 per cent stamp duty concession for newly constructed dwellings was offered under the Housing Construction Acceleration Plan. This plan was initially introduced for six months and has since been extended for a further six months to 31 June 2010. The extension of the Housing Construction Acceleration Plan was strongly supported by the housing sector, and this was possible because of New South Wales's stronger budget position. Over 2,700 homebuyers, including investors, families, and empty-nesters, have taken advantage of the stamp duty cut, putting almost $21 million worth of stamp duty back into their pockets and stimulating more than $1 billion worth of job-supporting construction activity. That is jobs for architects, builders, plumbers, other tradesmen and many more. So far, more than $1.2 billion worth of properties have been sold under this program. New South Wales continues to provide some of the most generous benefits in Australia to first home buyers, including the $7,000 First Home Owner Grant, the $3,000 New Home Supplement, and First Home Plus transfer duty exemptions worth up to $17,990 for homes valued up to $500,000.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: How much is all that worth?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The member can add it up; he has fingers. First home buyers in New South Wales have received $580 million in grants for the first eight months of this financial year, compared to $270 million for the same time last financial year. Further, $345 million worth of stamp duty has been waived for New South Wales first home buyers for the first eight months of this financial year, compared to $253 million last financial year. I am sure members will be glad to hear the Government remains committed to continuing this important stimulus for New South Wales's $17.8 billion private residential housing sector. This is a massive level of support for New South Wales families and the State's housing sector, helping more New South Wales families achieve the great Australian dream of owning their own home. This is part of our ongoing strategy to ensure that we maintain those green shoots of recovery as they grow through the economy. As each indicator that is released day after day, week after week, month after month shows, New South Wales is leading the nation in the economic recovery period. We are proud of our contribution to the nation's wealth and recovery.
ABORIGINAL LAND VALUATION
Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Lands. In December 2006 the 81,000 hectares that had been transferred to Aboriginal land councils was valued at $800 million. In July 2007 this same 81,000 hectares was valued at over $2 billion. Will the Minister confirm the total value of the land that has been transferred to Aboriginal land councils to date? Will the Minister also indicate the basis for this valuation figure, including the inflation index that has been applied to arrive at this figure, and whether the figure is based on current or projected future uses of the land?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am sure Mr Ian Cohen does not expect me to have that information in my mind. I will take the question on notice and provide him with an answer.
BAIL LAWS
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Minister concerned that a man wanted in relation to drug dealing who was caught on Monday and was alleged to have evaded police for 14 years was released on bail? Given the success of Operation Avert Five in apprehending those on outstanding warrants, what changes must be enacted from a judicial perspective to ensure those with a propensity for failing to appear at court are not released so that they can escape justice again?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: It is interesting the Hon. David Clarke asks this question. First of all, I congratulate him on his re-endorsement by the Liberal Party. I realise that the past few weeks have been very stressful for him, as he has had to navigate his way and make deals all round the place, particularly with the likes of the Hon. Catherine Cusack and others, with whom he would not readily see eye to eye. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on his success. I also draw to his attention that when we recently put laws before the Parliament to preclude people from making repeat bail applications an amendment was moved by another colleague that he does not see eye to eye with, the Hon. John Ajaka, to dilute those bail laws so that those who go before registrars can make yet a further application before a magistrate. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21527
When the Hon. David Clarke talks about the question of bail he should reflect on those particular circumstances. There is no doubt that New South Wales has the toughest bail laws of any State in Australia. It is interesting to note that we have been criticised for having so many people on remand. The Hon. David Clarke would know that bail decisions are reviewable by the courts and that if an inappropriate decision has been made, it can be reviewed by a higher court on application by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.
GARRAWARRA CENTRE FOR AGED CARE
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Yesterday the Hon. John Ajaka asked a question about Garrawarra Nursing Home. I wish to provide a supplementary answer to the question. The Commonwealth's Aged Care Act 1997 established that the Commonwealth, rather than the States, has responsibility for policy, funding and regulation of residential aged care facilities. With the support of Commonwealth capital assistance and recurrent subsidies there has also been a significant expansion in the non-government sector provision of, and expertise in, aged care services.
The vast majority of residential aged care in New South Wales is now provided by the non-government sector, and State-owned nursing homes attract less Commonwealth funding than those operated by the non-government sector, despite providing the same services. In other words, the aged care landscape has been transformed and the circumstances that now exist are very different from those in previous decades, or even earlier this decade. Because of this the New South Wales Government has been transferring State-owned nursing homes to the non-government sector.
The care and comfort of nursing home residents is extremely important to us. Transfer proposals will be accepted only if they deliver positive outcomes for residents and their families, staff and the health system. I am advised that proposals for the transfer of State-owned nursing homes go through a rigid tender process and must comply with a number of guiding principles. One of these guiding principles is that continuity of care is ensured for all existing residents and that in the event of a transfer any disruption for existing residents is minimised.
Questions without notice concluded.
[The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Greg Donnelly.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Report: Homelessness and Low-Cost Rental Accommodation
Debate resumed from 10 March 2010.
The Hon. IAN WEST [2.33 p.m.], in reply: When we adjourned debate on this take-note motion I was concluding my remarks by thanking and commending the Minister for Housing, the Hon. David Borger, for referring this very important issue to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. I also commended the committee members and the secretariat for their unstinting work on this inquiry, which resulted in a very comprehensive, detailed and important report that can be acted upon by the Government. I commend the report to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to. 21528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report: Operation of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993: Discussion Paper
Debate resumed from 24 September 2009.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [2.34 p.m.]: The Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission's discussion paper entitled "Operation of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993" was tabled in this House on 24 September 2009. In the course of its inquiry into investigations undertaken by the Health Care Complaints Commission into complaints made against Mr Graeme Reeves, the committee identified a number of areas in which it considered that improvements might be made that would avoid a repetition of the failure to properly monitor Mr Reeves' medical practice. Having regard to those improvements, on 25 September 2008 the committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into the operation of the Health Care Complaints Commission Act 1993 with particular reference to the identification and removal of any unnecessary complexities in the New South Wales health care complaints system, the appropriateness of the current assessment and investigative powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission and the effectiveness of information sharing between the commission and the area health services and registration authorities in New South Wales.
At that time the impetus was growing for a national registration and accreditation scheme. That impetus arose partly because of the scandal surrounding Graeme Reeves, upon which the committee reported. Given that an important component of the national scheme was to be a national health care complaints handling system, the committee deferred its inquiry to see how this might be developed. I note that the committee had serious concerns that the original scheme proposed would be a retrograde step towards a discredited system of self-regulation and made representations to the then Minister for Health, the Hon. John Della Bosca, to that effect. The committee felt that, although avoidable mistakes had undoubtedly been made that regrettably caused anguish and suffering, the Health Care Complaints Commission system in New South Wales had learnt from those mistakes and that it was important to maintain the integrity of an independent investigative body such as the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission.
Accordingly, committee members were pleased and relieved when the Minister announced in this place on 23 June 2009 that New South Wales had brokered an agreement for the retention of the Health Care Complaints Commission as part of the national scheme. On 11 November 2009, the Parliament passed the Health Practitioner Regulation Bill, which enabled New South Wales to adopt the national registration law as a co-regulatory jurisdiction so that complaints handling, health, conduct and performance management measures would continue to be regulated by State legislation. Whilst further legislation consolidating the national law with processes in New South Wales has not yet been introduced, it is anticipated that that will take place shortly.
Bearing in mind the passing of time since submissions were received by the committee and the potential impact of the national scheme, the committee resolved to issue this discussion paper rather than proceed directly to producing a report. In highlighting issues in the discussion paper, the committee has not advocated for their implementation. Rather, the committee paid close attention to the submissions and brought the issues raised into public discourse on the operation of the health care complaints system in New South Wales. I am pleased to advise the House that the committee received a further round of submissions in response to the discussion paper.
As noted in the other place by the committee's deputy chair, the member for Hornsby, Mrs Judy Hopwood, the committee has concluded that the optimal way to ensure the protection of the health and safety of the public is a health care complaints system governed by fundamental principles. These are: accountability, decision-making authorities must be accountable to the New South Wales community in carrying out their statutory functions; transparency, decision-making processes should be open, clear and understandable for both consumers and the professions; fairness, decision-making authorities should maintain an acceptable balance between protecting the rights and interests of patients and those of the practitioners; effectiveness, the regulatory system should be effective in protecting the public from harm and supporting and fostering equity of access in the provision of high-quality care; efficiency, the resources expended and the administrative burden imposed by the regulatory system must be justified by the benefits to the New South Wales community; and flexibility, the regulatory system should be well equipped to respond to emerging challenges in a timely manner as the health care system evolves and the roles and functions of health professions change.
In preparing this discussion paper the committee has relied on the expertise and experience of the Health Care Complaints Commission, healthcare practitioners and healthcare consumers to flag issues that 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21529
ought to lead to a more effective and efficient health care complaints system in New South Wales. I turn now to some of the key issues raised in the discussion paper. A recurring issue raised in submissions was the vital importance of effective and full communication between the Health Care Complaints Commission and the various parties with which the commission interacts, and this has been reflected in the discussion paper. Other specific matters included the Health Care Complaints Commission's communication with complainants, healthcare practitioners and health organisations; the oversight and administration of various registration authorities; the timeliness of investigations and powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission; avenues for the review of outcomes and decisions; the Health Care Complaints Commission's dealings with persons with special needs; and some perceptions of a lack of procedural fairness in the commission's investigation processes.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the time and effort that individuals and organisations have taken in making submissions to this inquiry. The committee is pleased to have been able to benefit from such thoughtful consideration of the inquiry's terms of reference. I also thank fellow committee members for their interest and contributions to the discussion paper, and especially thank and acknowledge the committee secretariat, in particular the manager, Mel Keenan, for their fine and professional work. I am also pleased to be able to advise the House that the committee held a public hearing on 4 March this year at which evidence was taken from a wide range of parties interested in the operations of the health care complaints system in New South Wales, and that will inform the committee's final report on this important issue, which I look forward to being able to table in the very near future.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.41 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in this take-note debate on the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission report No. 5/54 of September 2009, entitled, "Operation of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993: Discussion Paper." This is an important area of concern. First, we know the controversy that occurred over the activities of former doctor Graeme Reeves, and the anger in the community because of the time it seemed to take to deal with complaints that were raised about his bad treatment, and even abuse, of patients. Thankfully, that issue has been resolved and Reeves is no longer a registered doctor in New South Wales.
The second issue was whether there should be a role for the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission in a new national system. Like the Hon. Helen Westwood, I am pleased that provision has been made to retain the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission within the national system. We believe it is the most efficient system and should be retained. If we had not persisted, the system might have taken the lowest common dominator approach, because the other States are not as advanced as New South Wales in this area. That is a pleasing result.
The committee, in conducting its supervision of the commission and in its ongoing dialogue with various key players, felt it was important to release this discussion paper, which I fully support and which raises several important issues. It was a way of provoking the medical profession and others to consider those issues and to respond to the committee. We have had a number of responses to the discussion paper. Also, as has been stated, the committee held a public hearing on 4 March at which a number of items in the discussion paper were further canvassed with various witnesses, including the Health Care Complaints Commission, as well as other key players in the area.
In preparing the discussion paper the committee relied on the expertise and experience of the Health Care Complaints Commission, healthcare practitioners and healthcare consumers to flag issues that ought to lead to a more effective and efficient health care complaints system in New South Wales. The first term of reference is dealt with in chapter 2. Issues raised with respect to any unnecessary complexities in the health care complaints system were the practicalities of making a complaint, additional problems facing complainants with special needs, communication generally, and the wide range of registration authorities to be dealt with. The second term of reference was dealt with in chapter 3 of the discussion paper. Issues raised with respect to the current assessment and investigative powers of the commission were the conduct of the investigation process, timeliness, and final outcomes of the process. The third term of reference was dealt with in chapter 4. Issues raised with respect to information sharing between the commission and area health services and registration authorities include area health services not being informed of complaints relating to practitioners, or not being updated on such complaints.
The issues for discussion covered a very wide area. There were 29 issues in the discussion paper. For example, issue three was that the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights be added as a schedule to the Health Care Complaints Act 1993. Obviously there were various views on that matter. Issue five was that the commission review its procedures for advising practitioners that they are under investigation, with a view to 21530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
providing detailed information as to what to expect from that process, including statutory time frames and any support services that might be available. Another important issue was that the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 be amended so that the Health Care Complaints Commission can conduct investigations on its own motions so that investigations can be made more generally into the clinical management and care of patients.
I am sure that members can appreciate from my comments the practical issues that were raised in the discussion paper. It is a sample of the sorts of issues that were included in the discussion paper in order to encourage feedback. I am sure the paper will assist the committee in finalising its report and recommendations, which will lead in some cases to further amendments in the New South Wales Parliament in due course. I am pleased to commend the report to the House.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [2.47 p.m.], in reply: I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his contribution to the take-note debate. I reiterate that I look forward to being able to present the final report to the House very shortly.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2
Report: Budget Estimates 2009-2010
Debate resumed from 12 November 2009.
Mr IAN COHEN [2.48 p.m.]: I wish to make a few comments on the "Budget Estimates 2009-2010" report as I generally substitute on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 during budget estimates to inquire into portfolio areas including Ageing and Disabilities, Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs. I want to focus on a particular area in my contribution because I think it highlights the broader issues of ministerial accountability and transparency with regard to disability programs. I am endlessly frustrated by the basic lack of data collection and project management in this area, and I think we must commit to enhancing data collection and dissemination in the disabilities sector.
During the budget estimates hearings both Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and I had pressing concerns about the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care's funding support for the Home Modification and Maintenance Services [HMMS] program. While the Minister made it clear that funding for the program has increased by 73.4 per cent over a five-year period, there is clearly a high level of unmet demand for this program. With an ageing population and increased demands to move people out of hospital beds and into community or home care arrangements, demand for the program is increasing exponentially. Prior to these hearings I had been informed that the budget for programs had been fully allocated within three months of the start of the 2009-10 financial year. I was specifically concerned that people with high needs disabilities requiring level three modifications to their homes, which are modifications costing more than $20,000, were left without access to the program. In answer to my question, the Minister stated:
All HACC Program services are paid quarterly in advance by DADHC. The Level 3 Home Modifications statewide service provider has received base funding for the first two quarters of 2009/10.
The general response from the Minister acknowledged that the Federal Government contributes to the Home Modification and Maintenance Services program and that, while the State provides the base funding level, the Commonwealth provides top-up funding. However, when one reads the New South Wales HMMS State Council executive officer annual report 2008-09 we get a much more precise assessment. It states:
Due to the high demand for their services, Level 3 allocated their total 2009-2010 recurrent funding at the beginning of August 2009. As funding allocation was for applications currently on their waiting list, they are now unable to fund any new applications until 1st July 2010.
Another question I asked related to the unmet demand for this project. The Minister responded:
The data on number of referrals received but not able to be accommodated is not collected by DADHC and is known only at the service provider level.
In comparison, the New South Wales HMMS State Council executive officer annual report states:
Currently, the NSW Statewide Level 3 project has $1.404 million worth of major works on their waiting lists and cannot review this waiting list until 1st July 2010 when the new funding year begins. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21531
It is disappointing that this level of frankness and honesty is precluded from our budget estimates process. I applaud the HMMS State Council for its frank advice in comparison to the information furnished in budget estimates. The evidence from the council more generally demonstrates that the recurrent State funding for HMMS is inadequate. The allocation of $9.47 million in non-recurrent funding over a five-year period is evidence of the shortfalls in recurrent funding levels experienced by HMMS in New South Wales.
I also asked the Minister about the joint State and Federal governments program to move young people out of residential aged care. During the previous year's budget estimates hearing the Minister had indicated that the department aimed to move 109 young persons with disabilities out of residential aged care facilities by 2010-11. From the Minister's response, it is evident that we need other mechanisms in addition to the young people in residential aged care targets to help more young people with disabilities into more appropriate accommodation and support services. On a positive note, information that the Minister and director general provided on post-school programs, including the Community Participation Program and Transition to Work, showed that these programs are helping young people with disabilities enter the workforce. What does concern me about the increasing demands for these programs, particularly the Transition to Work, is that increased demand may represent the failure of primary and secondary education institutions to deliver significant development and learning outcomes for young people with disabilities.
In comparison to the less than frank responses provided during the hearings into the Ageing and Disabilities portfolio, the hearings for Community Services saw much more comprehensive and detailed responses. Both the Minister and departmental staff were comparatively forthcoming and would at least acknowledge where the department had room for improvement. One issue that does need to be followed up relates to the Boston Consulting report. That report is the result of a joint process between the then Department of Community Services, Treasury and the Premier's office to investigate increasing costs in out-of-home care. At the time, the report was still being finalised but it is now clear that Treasury and the Premier are using the report to undermine the recommendations of the Wood inquiry on non-government organisation involvement in foster care and Keep Them Safe. We should all be wary of the tendency for them to cut corners in providing secure out-of-home care services. I thank the committee and the committee staff for their hard work. I also thank those witnesses who attended in the spirit of being accountable and who provided information that helped us understand whether we are taking steps forward or falling behind.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [2.54 p.m.]: I intend to confine my comments to the Health portfolio about which I inquired as part of the budget estimates process on behalf of the Liberals-Nationals Coalition. In my opinion, the budget estimates process with regard to the Health portfolio revealed that the Labor Government presides over a sick system of service delivery.
Dr John Kaye: You just discovered that?
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: It has been an evolving opinion. This has been evident for some years now, with Kevin 07 making an election promise to take over the running of health federally if the States could not get their act together. We all know the fear he has of an electoral backlash in New South Wales—the worst culprit. Understanding the public's fury with this hapless New South Wales Government, Kevin 07 has blown the whistle yet again on incompetent mismanagement of the Health portfolio in this State and has threatened to take over its funding. The point must be made that the Liberals-Nationals Coalition, although supportive of Federal moves to return to increased local decision-making involving medical and nursing professionals, believes this move does not go far enough. If elected in March 2011 we will create smaller health districts with local boards to deliver a broad range of health services and hospital care. We need to deliver a health system that re-engages with demoralised medical and nursing professionals and puts patients first.
Each health district will have its own board made up of suitably qualified members from both the local community and local health facilities. Importantly, under our model, experienced clinicians will not be confined to advisory roles; they will be hands on in running the system. Our health district boards will manage partnership arrangements with pooled funding allocations negotiated by the Federal and State governments and other providers, if required. Premier Keneally and the Minister for Health should be now securing guarantees from the Federal Government that no rural or regional hospital will close as a result of these changes because right now they are in great peril. After 15 years of Labor in New South Wales, rural and regional families cannot afford to suffer any further Labor cuts to their local health services. There is a massive financial black hole in Prime Minister Rudd's health proposals, and we believe that regional hospitals are on the chopping block.
I turn now to examine the performance of our State's failed area health service structure, for example, the Sydney West Area Health Service. Last December the Auditor-General's report was scathing in terms of 21532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
falling bed numbers, dangerously high bed occupancy rates, failing emergency triage and emergency admissions performances that were both well below NSW Health benchmarks. The timely payment of accounts continues to be an issue across the State. The Government has comprehensively failed in so many areas of the Health portfolio, from cutting staff—including nurses—and bed numbers to adding to the ever-growing surgical waiting lists in Western Sydney. But the same poor performance has been repeated in so many other area health services in New South Wales. Waiting lists for elective surgery have increased by 48 per cent while Labor has been in power in New South Wales, from 44,700 in 1995 to 66,600 in 2009. This includes more than 4,000 patients waiting for surgery at Nepean, Mount Druitt and Hawkesbury hospitals. Labor has closed more than 2,500 hospital beds during its time in government.
Funding to upgrade, maintain or rebuild hospitals has been cut in the budget for 2009-10 by 23 per cent, or $176.6 million, which means delays to Labor's forever-promised new hospitals in Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Dubbo, Bega and the northern beaches. The Productivity Commission's report in January this year highlighted the increase in procedural errors involving wrong patients and wrong patient body parts, along with mix-ups in medication and a doubling of the number of cases of surgical instruments being left in patients—all clear signs of a system under stress, poor management processes, and quality safety checks not being adhered to.
We have had reports that 40 per cent of patients with golden staph acquired the infection whilst in hospital. This is a serious situation, as on average 20 per cent of golden staph patients die within a month of acquiring the infection. Clearly we need transparent unit or ward reporting of infections in hospitals, and clear procedures to prevent and reduce transmission rates. Patients should be entitled to access essential information on infection rates before they have elective surgery. Commissioner Garling found that hospital-acquired infection is costing the New South Wales health system more that $600 million each year, but still we see no real shift in prevention and containment procedures.
The Productivity Commission report also noted that New South Wales employs fewer nurses per 100,000 people than Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Clearly our hospital system is under stress. The report also revealed that New South Wales employs fewer medical practitioners per 100,000 people than the national average. The report was a damning indictment of the State Government's management of the New South Wales health system over the past 15 years. The last three annual Productivity Commission reports have been dismissed by successive Labor health Ministers, namely Reba Meagher, John Della Bosca and now Carmel Tebbutt. It is no wonder that the problems leading to these bad reports continue to cause distress to the many good men and women working as nurses, doctors and allied health workers, to say nothing of the distress caused to the New South Wales public at large. In December last year, more than one year post the Garling report, the Australian Medical Association claimed that the only visible reforms were the "explosion of staff name badges and more pictures of senior staff on hospital walls". Let us look at Nepean Hospital, which has one of the longest waiting lists in the State, with more than 2,000 people waiting for surgery—
The Hon. Trevor Khan: And Tamworth.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: And Tamworth, of course. Yet the Government has made so many cuts to Nepean Hospital's operating theatre times over the years. Nepean Hospital's emergency department is struggling to cope. Some 50 per cent of its patients have an imminently life-threatening condition and 75 per cent of its patients have a potentially life-threatening condition not treated within clinically appropriate time frames. This criticism does not reflect on the quality of the doctors and nurses at Nepean Hospital; rather, it reflects on this incompetent Government that does not adequately resource the emergency department with staffing to enable it to cope with the workload in one of western Sydney's major teaching hospitals.
Sydney West Area Health Service still has many millions of dollars owing to creditors, as do many other area health services. So many nursing, allied health and cleaning service positions have gone from not only Nepean Hospital but other New South Wales hospitals as the Government's health budget continues to bleed. Redundancies have been offered across the board. The Government must guarantee that no more front-line health jobs will be cut, that doctors and nurses will be given the resources they need to treat emergency patients on time, that operating theatres will not be closed for extended periods as we approach Easter to save money—they should be left open to allow surgeons to reduce waiting lists—and that small businesses should be paid by the relevant area health service within 30 days, and if not they should receive penalty interest payments for unpaid bills. Failed area health services will be abolished by a Liberals-Nationals government and replaced by smaller health districts with local boards containing appropriate local medical and nursing specialists and local community leaders. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21533
[Interruption]
The Labor Party does not want to hear this, but it will be delivered. Kevin 07 is even telling the New South Wales Government it has got it wrong! Labor's own Federal leader is embarrassed about the New South Wales Labor Government. He is embarrassed and turns his head away because he simply cannot bring himself to tell the New South Wales Government what he really feels about its performance.
The Hon. Michael Veitch: Every hospital will have a board?
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: One thing I can assure the Hon. Michael Veitch is that the Liberals-Nationals Coalition will put community health in local hands and we will always put patients first.
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.04 p.m.]: Before I commence my remarks on the Education portfolio I note the remarks of the Hon. Marie Ficarra. It is extraordinary that the accusations she has levelled against the Government regarding the New South Wales health system, many of which are absolutely spot-on, relate to measures that have been delivered by a Labor Government, the Labor Party being the party that gave Australia the greatest single advance in public health: universal health insurance. It is a matter of great shame for this Government that it has betrayed the great Labor principle of making sure that everyone has access to high-quality health care.
It was not my intention to speak about health. What I really want to talk about is the budget estimates committee hearing held on 16 September 2009 regarding the Education portfolio. I draw to the attention of the House five issues that arose at that hearing in answers given to questions put to both the Minister for Education and Training, Minister Verity Firth, and her director general, Michael Coutts-Trotter. The first issue relates to the accelerated sale of surplus lands. The House will recall that the mini-budget of a year and a half ago committed the Government to a $239 million sale of surplus public school and TAFE college lands, $9 million in 2009-10, $30 million in 2010-11, and $200 million in 2011-12.
When this matter was raised with the Minister and the director general, the best interpretation one could put on their responses was massive confusion. The Minister reiterated her statement made in public prior to the budget estimates hearing, saying, "There is no pressure from Treasury to sell quantities of land." I do not understand what a mini-budget is, if it is not pressure from Treasury. It is not just pressure from Treasury; it is an instruction from Treasury. Yet, the education Minister and her director general continually obfuscate about the hundreds of hectares of public school and TAFE college land that will disappear unless that budget directive is repealed.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Shame!
Dr JOHN KAYE: It is shameful that the Minister and the director general came up with a number of excuses, including, "This is only surplus land." What surplus land? Surplus land is whatever one defines to be surplus land. They then said, "This is part of the normal process of land sale that goes on within education." They deliberately confused the issue with the normal process of a school offloading maybe an extra field or an extra parcel of land, whereby the school gets to keep 90 per cent of the proceeds and the department gets 10 per cent. Indeed, that is exactly not what is happening here. Under Treasurer Roozendaal's system the general revenue will keep 50 per cent and 50 per cent will stay within Education.
Suddenly the Government discovered that it had 400 vacant sites. When all else fails, pull out the 400 vacant sites! It left the matter completely unresolved. In fact, not only was it unresolved in the minds of the budget estimates committee but also it was unresolved in the minds of officers of the Department of Education and Training. A number of bureaucrats felt it necessary to develop advice for the director general, which said, "You should look at every school that has six hectares of land or more, and you should declare land over that as being surplus and hence available to the mini-budget's accelerated sale process." What is absolutely clear is that nobody within the Department of Education and Training or within the Minister's office really knows what the future is for schools that have more than six hectares of land.
Every school community should unite and say to the Labor Government, and to an incoming Coalition government: There will be no school land sales to prop up the budget. Paying nurses and teachers from the sale of public school land is an appalling diseconomy: it is selling off the future of public education to balance the budget. The second issue I raise is the My School website. We have debated the issue in this House on a number of occasions. One of the questions I put to the Minister—it was asked in the future tense because the hearing 21534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
was held in September 2009—was how we could go ahead with a website that listed all school results without the funding data being available. I will read to the House the Minister's response, because given subsequent events it becomes very interesting. The Minister said:
It is absolutely right to say that you cannot judge schools or compare like schools without having that very important and transparent information around the resources of a school. It is vital that this information is transparently and openly reported.
Let us fast forward to the beginning of 2010 when the My School website went live without that information; when schools, teachers and communities were slandered on the say of the Minister for Education and Training and her Federal colleague who said it was okay to publish those school results without mediating them through school resources. What a shameful attack on public education! The Minister clearly showed from her statement to the Budget Estimates Committee, and the Federal Minister knew, that many schools were spending more than twice the amount per student being spent on an average student in public education. For example, The King's School, Parramatta spends $26,000 per annum on a Higher School Certificate student while across the road Arthur Phillip High School spends $11,000 per annum recurrent on a Higher School Certificate student. Yet those two schools were put in direct comparison without the resource data being included. It was a shameful act!
I now refer to a rather remarkable occurrence of dates that reflect poorly on the Minister for Education and Training and her department. During estimate hearings I asked the Minister about the Certificate for General and Vocational Education [CGVE] being taught in TAFE. CGVE is a pathway for students who no longer can cope at school and who go to TAFE to undertake a year 10 equivalent qualification. I have spoken in this House about it before. Indeed, it was a matter of importance last year when this House quite correctly, and the Greens enthusiastically supported it, passed a school leaving age of 17 years with an earn-or-learn component, which effectively locks students into school until 17 years of age or until they have passed their year 10 qualification. Many students do not pass year 10 qualifications at school because they have outgrown the school, the discipline of school, the teaching style of school or the class size of conventional schools does not work for them. TAFE has traditionally created a pathway for those students to leave the discipline of school and go somewhere more appropriate: to TAFE. On 19 September last I asked the Minister if there was any move to stop that happening. The Minister responded to my question as follows:
But you have my absolute assurance that there is definitely no conspiracy to stop kids enrolling in CGVE when that is the most appropriate outcome for them.
On 21 September Marie Persson, the then Director General of TAFE and the Assistant Director General of Education and Training, a second-tier bureaucrat beneath the Minister, wrote to all TAFE teachers and said:
Students wishing to attend TAFE NSW to attend a course equivalent to year 10— that is the CGVE—
… will need to show they have the ability and skills to study in an adult learning environment, the ability to undertake specific vocational qualifications and the language, literacy and numeracy skills to be successful in their chosen course. The best place for young people to complete Year 10 is within the school sector.
Gotcha Marie Persson! Marie Persson is saying students will not be enrolled in TAFE for CGVE unless they have a vocational outcome in mind. These kids do not have a vocational outcome in mind; they hardly have any outcome in mind. She then said they must have study skills. These kids do not have any study skills. If they had study skills they would be able to stay at school to complete their qualifications. She then moved on to language, literacy and numeracy skills. The precise purpose of the CGVE is to provide for those kids for whom conventional education has failed the skills they need to study literacy and numeracy. It is shameful that the Minister for Education and Training gave that undertaking and then five days later her Director General of TAFE repealed that undertaking.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.14 p.m.]: The extraordinary politically motivated diatribe from the Hon. Marie Ficarra has to be addressed. Before I start I remind the likes of the Hon. Trevor Khan of the excellent performance indicators and clinical outcomes of Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital. We never hear about it from him; all we hear are derogatory remarks. The specialty services and the benefits of a regional association with the tertiary hospital are insurmountable for the people of the New England.
The benefits of the integrated service of community hospitals, district hospitals, regional and referral and tertiary hospitals, along with community health, mental health and primary care such as medical practitioners, physiotherapists and podiatrists for the communities of New England are incredible. I would argue 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21535
they are equalled by none of the other Commonwealth countries. Guess what? When people use the services they come out and say, "I do not know what people are talking about. Gee it was good, and everything that was supposed to happen whilst I was in hospital did happen."
The New South Wales Government has increased health funding every year to a record $15.1 billion— almost one-third of the State budget. There has been a 174 per cent increase in the health budget since 1995. New South Wales contributes $1.73 for every dollar contributed by the Commonwealth, and it has increased its proportion of funding over the past decade. That latest data from the Productivity Commission shows that New South Wales meets triage categories 76 per cent of the time, compared with the national average of 69 per cent; 30 per cent of emergency department attendances in New South Wales are reported to end in an admission compared with the national average of 31 per cent; New South Wales has 2.9 beds per 1,000 people compared with a national average of 2.7 beds; the cost of an average treatment for a patient in New South Wales is $4,295 compared with a national average of $4,232; New South Wales non-medical labour costs, that is, nursing, allied health, administration and other staff as a portion of the average cost to treat a patient are $2,112 compared with the national average of $2,140—others can use their calculators on that; and in New South Wales hospitals 2.2 per cent of patients waited more than 12 months for elective surgery out of some 133,101 admissions—
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Selective waiting criteria; very selective—
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The Hon. Marie Ficarra is calling out selective figures but I repeat that the latest data from the Productivity Commission shows that. I will also repeat my last dot point: in New South Wales 2.2 per cent of patients—
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: I will visit Tamworth with you, Trevor.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Tamworth is really worth visiting. The work that has been put into the clinical outcomes and excellent performance indicators, and the attracting of clinical expertise required to maintain a regional tertiary hospital, has been fantastic. I am a bit biased, having been connected to the place, but they deserve credit for what has been done. The grouping of those hospitals has been very effective. The Hon. Trevor Khan is also biased—he never talks about anything else.
In New South Wales 2.2 per cent of patients waited more than 12 months for elective surgery out of 133,101 admissions to our hospitals. This is compared with a national average of 3.4 per cent. I repeat, in New South Wales 2.2 per cent, nationally 3.4 per cent. Corporate staff comprises about 4 per cent of the total staff of NSW Health compared with 5.1 per cent in 2003. From June 2003 to June 2009 the New South Wales medical workforce has increased by 22 per cent. I ask the Hon. Marie Ficarra to note that the nursing workforce has increased by 15 per cent. Despite the constant use of fear tactics and political diatribe about the New South Wales health system, I reinforce the massive work that has been done, particularly in the past five to six years, to make major changes in service provision to the benefit of the people of New South Wales. It is not to the benefit of the Labor Government, the Coalition Opposition or those who want to involve themselves in loud, political pointscoring. It is to the benefit of the people of New South Wales. As Premier Keneally has said, we are working very hard with the Federal Government to ensure that an agreement comes out of the Council of Australian Governments' process for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. It is not for the benefit of any particular politician or any particular fraternity within the health system. It is for the benefit of the people of New South Wales.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.21 p.m.], in reply: The debate on General Purpose Standing Committee report No. 2 "Budget Estimates 2009-2010" has been a robust discussion with a great deal of important information presented. I commend honourable members for their contributions. I note the ongoing and continuing problems for the New South Wales Labor Government in the portfolios of Health, Ageing and Disability Services, Aboriginal Affairs, Education and Training, Women and Community Services. I acknowledge the contributions of all members who participated in the budget estimates, particularly crossbench and Coalition members who asked strong and revealing questions during the process. We have seen outcomes from many of those questions. There are continuing problems post the budget estimates process. A number of reports and inquiries continue to reveal problems in relation to Disability Services, the Program of Appliances for Disabled People, Education, particularly for children with disability, and Health as a result of the Government's continual mismanagement of these portfolios. I thank the committee members for their contribution and I congratulate them on this report. I look forward to the next budget estimates process when we will examine this State Labor Government's budget for the last time. I commend the report to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to. 21536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2
Report: Bullying of Children and Young People
Debate resumed from 12 November 2009.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.24 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak on the report "Bullying of Children and Young People", another outstanding report from General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2. The committee dealt in depth with this issue, which is of great concern to society across all communities, within schools and outside the school environment because of its impact on children in their homes and on their lives generally. Sadly, we continue to hear stories about the impact of bullying. This report was tabled in November 2009. It is now March 2010. We look forward to the response of the Government to incredibly good and sound recommendations from General Purpose Standing Committee No 2. The committee received very interesting evidence during this inquiry. A great number of the expert's evidence and submissions came from other States of Australia. The committee considered it needed evidence of a greater focus than was available in New South Wales. However, the New South Wales community is very focused on bullying.
It is no surprise that bullying is rife in our communities when so many parts of society are demonstrating less empathy than ever before. Video footage of bullying victims is entertainment on YouTube and social networking sites. We are feeding the flames with the constant development of new technologies, judgemental reality shows and audience judging on funny home videos. Unfortunately, bullying has become acceptable and standard behaviour in some forums. We must discuss and debate what needs to be done to combat an increase in bullying among schoolchildren, particularly with the emergence of cyber bullying. We must consider it as an issue that is not geographically limited to the playground. We must consider it in the context of society as a whole. Years ago my parents generation would say, "Ignore the bullies", "A bit of teasing helps", "Suck it up". But evidence presented before the inquiry clearly indicated that bullying is considered a social issue, not just a personal predicament.
Bullying has a profound, traumatic and damaging impact on all involved, that is, the targets and the perpetrators, their families, their schools and the wider community. Bullying is often difficult to detect. It is a widespread behaviour that can have harmful and long-term effects on children's and young people's self-esteem, mental health, school performance and wellbeing. The committee was alarmed by the prevalence of cyber bullying. While both bullying and cyber bullying are deeply negative experiences, cyber bullying is more insidious by nature, having a heightened impact due to its ability to reach into the private domain of children and young people. The inquiry clearly demonstrated that the New South Wales Department of Education and Training has to take action to address bullying and cyber bullying across the education system. It has to put a concerted effort into addressing bullying, particularly given the tragic consequences of bullying, which in the most extreme cases can result in the loss of young lives to suicide. School communities need more support and guidance if schools are to develop and implement successful evidence-based responses to bullying and cyber bullying.
The committee made a number of recommendations to support school communities, and to give teachers and parents the tools they need to understand bullying and the best methods to combat it. In providing better assistance to schools in identifying evidence-based anti-bullying programs, the committee recommended that a blueprint program be established to give schools a research base on cost-effective anti-bullying programs and that teachers receive better training to ensure they are equipped with the knowledge and tools to prevent and intervene in the incidents of bullying.
The committee felt very strongly that it was no good having an anti-bullying policy if that policy was no to be implemented. A policy that sits in the drawer is useless. Schools need more assistance to enable them to respond effectively to cyber bullying. The committee was concerned that the National Secondary School Computer Fund did not provide schools with support or professional development on cyber bullying. The committee was of the view that the Commonwealth Government should step up and properly support the rollout of technology to ensure that students are able to learn safely in the online environment.
The committee felt that to effectively address bullying and cyber bullying, proactive anti-bullying education should be embedded in all aspects of the school curriculum as part of a focus on overall student wellbeing. We saw examples of some excellent programs. The most successful programs had good leadership and were conducted across the schools in every aspect. Parents must be provided with more information about what schools are doing to address bullying, and protocols have to be put in place for schools to report on effective bullying prevention policies. A program on greater social awareness must be implemented to focus the attention of schools, parents and the wider community on this most critical issue. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21537
The committee recommended the observation of a community-wide, anti-bullying week focusing on schools and TAFE. One of the committee's our most significant recommendations was that the New South Wales Department of Education and Training seek annual feedback from children and young people on anti-bullying initiatives. That means asking children and young people—a revolutionary measure it seems sometimes—about what is happening in their schools, to ensure that anti-bullying initiatives are informed by, and respond to the needs of, children and young people. The committee undertook to consult with children and young people quite broadly. I congratulate the committee secretariat—Beverly Duffy, Madeleine Foley, Cathryn Cummins and Kate Mihaljek—on resourcing us so brilliantly for this inquiry, which, like many inquiries conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, was imaginative and broad ranging.
The committee undertook an online consultation with children and young people, using the very social networking medium with which they are familiar. The response was quite significant. It was certainly a first for a New South Wales committee and an approach I would recommend other committees adopt to ascertain what children and young people think. The committee saw some very good programs in some schools and its members consulted with representative groups of children and young people throughout the inquiry.
Bullying is an ongoing problem; it will not be resolved overnight. Having said that, however, to assist in the battle against bullying the committee's recommendations must be adopted by the New South Wales State Labor Government immediately. I have no idea why the Government is taking so long to respond to our recommendations; some of them are no-brainers. For example, incredibly, the Kids Helpline, which receives so many calls from children reaching out for help, gets funding from other States but not from New South Wales. The Kids Helpline service in New South Wales receives calls from an overwhelming number of children and young people. In fact almost half of the contacts made to the helpline are from children and young people in New South Wales, yet not one cent of funding comes from the New South Wales Government to provide support. The committee recommends recurrent financial support for the New South Wales Government to the Kids Helpline.
All members should read this report. Bullying is an ongoing issue and bipartisan support is required to address it. As parliamentarians we must set an example to the rest of the community. We need to show children and young people, parents and teachers that we acknowledge the long-term effects of bullying, that we acknowledge the need to provide support and advice and that we acknowledge the need to resource children, teachers, parents and young people to reduce the impact of bullying. Bullying of children and young people has lifelong consequences; bullies in the playground may well end up being bullies in the workplace or in the home environment by engaging in domestic violence.
The committee made 25 recommendations, including the employment of additional school liaison police and school counsellors; a blueprint for schools to determine the suitability of anti-bullying programs; an assessment of the legal framework to determine the appropriateness of bullying-related offences; recurrent support for the Kids Helpline; the implementation of uniform procedures for collecting information from New South Wales schools; and the publication online by all schools of anti-bullying policies. I thank all committee members for their contributions and for a report of which we can all be proud. I look forward to the Government taking on board the committee's recommendations as a blueprint to enable it to pick up its act and do better, which it certainly needs to do. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other members and to the Government's response to our recommendations. I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.37 p.m.]: First, I wish to thank the committee Chair, the Hon. Robyn Parker, for her zeal and for her understanding of the changing nature of bullying and its adverse effects on young persons. I also acknowledge and thank the committee secretariat—Beverly Duffy, Madeleine Foley, Cathryn Cummins and Kate Mihaljek—for their professionalism and patience. Bullying in our society requires a zero tolerance approach, especially when it involves children and young people. Schools should incorporate proactive anti-bullying education in all aspects of their curriculum in a whole-of-school approach to addressing the issue.
Ongoing psychological damage to the victims of bullying and their families, violence in and out of school, attempted self-harm and tragic incidents of suicide have sharply focused public attention on this serious societal problem. Long-lasting harmful effects of bullying on young people's self-esteem, mental health, school performance and wellbeing can manifest itself into adulthood. The National Centre Against Bullying defines "bullying" in the following terms:
Bullying occurs when a student or group with more power repeatedly and intentionally uses negative words and/or actions against another student or students that cause distress and create a risk to well being. Bullying can be physical, social, verbal, electronic or reputational. 21538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
Last year the National Kids Helpline received more than 600,000 calls about bullying. A recent Wesley Mission report, entitled "Give Kids a Chance: No One Deserves to be Left Out", identifies that seven out of every ten adults who were victims of bullying suffer low esteem, a lack of assertiveness and difficulties building relationships based on trust, with many suffering depression into their adulthood. We are only now starting to understand the enormity of the problem of cyber bullying created by the misuse of an otherwise wonderful learning and communication tool that we know as the Internet.
Cyber bullying is insidious and deeply negative, with its ability to spread so rapidly and to enter personal domains under the guise of social networking. More cyber safety education is needed as part of a proactive prevention and protection approach within our schools. Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, in rolling out new technology as part of the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund, must provide urgent support for professional development in dealing with cyber bullying in schools. To have overlooked such a critical online health and safety issue is negligent.
Indeed, Internet service providers can show greater responsibility and leadership in the area by working with all levels of government to better protect children and young persons while they are in their online environment. Their responsiveness to the concerns of parents, teachers and students could be increased and strengthened. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth's Consultative Working Group on Cyber-Safety develop a cooperative agreement with local Internet service providers to implement international best practice for user protection from cyber bullying.
The committee's 25 recommendations address the issue of more support and guidance for schools, teachers, parents and young persons to combat bullying. Evidence-based initiatives need to be financed by both the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government. The Department of Education and Training should collect information on the effectiveness of school anti-bullying policies to form the basis of accountability structures that will apply to schools reassessing their performance in handling bullying within their school communities. Teachers need better training to prevent and intervene early in incidents of bullying. Bullying must be addressed as a compulsory component of early teacher training and included in the mandatory professional development program for practising teachers.
The employment of additional school counsellors will provide much-needed support to teachers and students. The counsellors will assist with the development and implementation of anti-bullying initiatives. High-quality counselling and support services both within schools and externally, such as the Kids Helpline, should receive recurrent funding because they provide anonymous and powerful support in a manner to which young people can relate. Parents need more information on what their children's schools are doing about bullying with related policies published on school websites and distributed in hard copy to families, and that should include transparency about areas that need improvement. School websites should also include contact information for school liaison police and other support services such as the Kids Helpline.
All members of school communities, including parents, need to understand their responsibilities when it comes to preventing and lessening school bullying, whether in or out of school or online. The Attorney General will be asked to review the ability of the existing legal framework to deal with bullying-related offences and to determine whether any protective strengthening is needed. The Minister for Police will be encouraged to employ additional school liaison police, who are crucial in the prevention of bullying behaviour and in building student resilience and confidence. Parents should have the progress of their complaints reported to them regularly and they should be provided with information on their rights if they are dissatisfied with their school's response. The Department of Education and Training has been asked to investigate the possibility of a student's history of bullying being transferred between schools to assist in their personal development. The department should also develop measurable protocols for schools to report annually on the effectiveness of their bullying prevention policies. Those schools underperforming should be assisted by immediate direct departmental intervention.
The committee recommended that a system of random audit of schools' anti-bullying policies be conducted by the department commencing in 2011. The committee believes that the community at large would support a social awareness campaign across New South Wales focusing on schools, communities and the TAFE sector. A community-wide anti-bullying week could be a proactive initiative and it should be supported.
All members have much more respect for young people's feedback about programs and resources used in the campaign against bullying as a result of this inquiry. The committee has recommended that annual feedback provided by the department be made public so that educators, legislators and counsellors can be better 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21539
informed of progress in the area. In particular, the committee recommended the implementation of annual reporting—at least—including online student consultative feedback, as a means of involving young people in identifying issues and solutions. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training and all registered training organisations have a duty of care to ensure that apprentices and trainees learn in an environment free of bullying. To better understand the extent of bullying that presently occurs, TAFE and other training institutions will be required to collect bullying-related data to assist in developing appropriate strategies.
My participation in this inquiry was a learning experience and, like my committee colleagues, I hope that this report makes a difference. We certainly hope that this Government implements all of the committee's recommendations. As the Hon. Robyn Parker said, not to do that would be a no-brainer. Bullying of children and young people is responsible for much emotional, physical, social and financial damage to students, teachers and parents, and it leaves lasting scars on victims and their families and often the perpetrators. This report sends a message of zero tolerance of all forms of bullying inside and outside schools. By targeting our young the message will extend ultimately to our workforces, communities, families and lives.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.44 p.m.]: I support General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2's report entitled "Inquiry into Bullying of Children and Young People" and its recommendations. As other members of the committee have said, this inquiry was very informative. Our inquiries gave us a good understanding of what is happening in the wider community and we gathered a great deal of good and diverse information. It was exciting to see the development and implementation of programs within the education sector and the work that young people, parents, teachers and education administrators are doing to address bullying of children and young people. No-one could say that the programs being implemented across New South Wales will magically make these issues disappear. The microcosm that is a school community presents a range of extremely difficult issues that must be resolved.
A great deal of the work being done in schools relates to the development of self-esteem. Young people are educated about their right to speak at appropriate times and to recognise aggressive or antisocial behaviour and to deal with it. It became clear that some very young children are the victims of bullying and that they are required to deal with complicated social structures. It was encouraging to see the different groups developing programs to deal with bullying. No-one is claiming that the problem is being effectively addressed across the board. However, work is being done in the education sector to implement programs throughout the State.
The committee's inquiry highlighted the importance of school communities developing their own solutions. That involves teachers, parents, administrators and the students themselves. It is important that individual school communities take responsibility for this issue. We cannot apply a blanket solution to bullying. We know from the work that we do as members of Parliament that all communities are different and that they must react locally to resolve issues. It was exciting to see the number of people throughout New South Wales who want these anti-bullying programs to succeed. There has been no whitewashing; people acknowledge that we still have a huge problem—as we always have had.
When the inquiry commenced I had difficulty dealing with the issues. I recalled my individual way of dealing with bullying when I was at school. I thought: What was wrong with that? It turned me into what I am today. Then I thought: Maybe that is not such a good thing. Perhaps it is wise to have some perception of normalcy about what should be done to us as we are growing up. I still have a problem defining the term "normalcy". I presented a report dissenting to the report of the committee. It was no massive dissent; it related to a procedural issue. I should have put questions on notice about policies relating to TAFE policies, student discipline and mandatory procedures and the code of conduct. Material on all these issues came to me after the report had been put together, and I brought it to the deliberative process. There was general agreement that it would have been handy to have this material earlier, but that was not possible. So, recognising the procedural problems I introduced it in the form of a dissenting report, to ensure that the extensive work being done by TAFE organisations was documented. It was most unfortunate that that information was not available to the committee at the time the report was being put together.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Why was the material not considered by the committee?
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Because the secretariat advised that it would have been inappropriate procedurally to do so. Although I brought the material to the deliberative meeting, I had not put questions on notice in relation to it and, accordingly, it could not be included in the report. A ruling was given in relation to it and I accepted that ruling. It is referred to in my dissenting comments. It is just a pity that the report does not make reference to TAFE. 21540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I thought the committee voted on it?
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The committee did vote on it. One member submitted that for procedural reasons the material could not go in the report, and that is what happened. The committee members did not vote on the issue, they voted on the procedural process. I stated in my dissenting report:
In 1.5.1 the second sentence required deletion as the committee received considerable evidence of programs and schools achieving positive results with their proactive prevention and protection approaches throughout the Inquiry. This sentence discounts a lot of very good work being done by young people and their communities across the State. Work which with further support and endorsement will continue to make our schools happier and safer places.
That is what I proposed but it was not agreed to. All in all, I think the committee did a satisfactory job on this inquiry. As do other members of the committee, I look forward to some results. I thank the secretariat and other members of the committee for their assistance and for my experience on this inquiry.
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.53 p.m.]: I begin by acknowledging the importance of this inquiry and the efforts of the committee chair, the Hon. Robyn Parker, to institute it. It was her foresight that drove us to examine the issue. The more we looked at it the more we realised that this significant and serious issue has had inadequate attention from the Parliament, the Department of Education and Training and governments. As the Hon. Christine Robertson pointed out, historically there has been an acceptance of bullying in Australia as part of our culture and it is time that this Parliament and Government sent a strong message stating that bullying will not be tolerated. There is no character formation, there is nothing positive about the experience of being bullied, there is nothing positive that can be said about bullying, and it must be stamped out.
One of the first things I learnt in this inquiry was what bullying is—or, more accurately, what it is not. Quite often we use the expression "bullying" to cover random or targeted acts of violence in the workplace or at school. The definitions of "bullying", especially the one from the National Centre against Bullying, suggest that that is not correct. Bullying requires three key ingredients: first, repetition of the act—that is, repeated hurtful behaviour; an intention to harm—that is, an intention to cause physical, psychological or emotional harm; and a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim, not just through physical size or strength but also possibly through age, status or capacity. Those three key ingredients narrow down the field on bullying, and it is frightening that the incidence of bullying is both dramatic and growing.
The consequences of bullying were described in graphic detail to the committee. A large volume of evidence showed immense unacceptable consequences for mental and physical health and self-esteem, and for individuals and school communities. It became clear to every member of the committee that not only do we need to reduce the impact of bullying but also there needs to be a far greater understanding of the causes of bullying. The overriding theme of all the evidence we took was a need for an evidence-based response to bullying. It is clear that all principals and schools have access to a wide range of programs. In many ways they are spoilt for choice, in many ways they are drinking from fire hydrants, and therein lies the problem. When principals perceive there is a problem of bullying or that they need to fulfil their obligation to implement an anti-bullying program within their school, they have a wide range of programs to choose from. But in many instances there is not enough time for those principals to make quality decisions.
One of the most important recommendations of the committee related to the need to give more assistance to principals in choosing anti-bullying programs for their schools. It is not a case of one size fits all; one size does not fit all with bullying. Different schools, different communities, different cultures will require different anti-bullying programs. What is absolutely clear is that there needs to be more guidance on the issue. The committee came up with the sensible idea of a blueprint and additional guidance on the evidence base of each of the anti-bullying programs on offer. The committee also identified that we lacked data to understand the extent of bullying and the effectiveness of available anti-bullying programs. More effort must be put into collecting evidence on the extent and the effectiveness of existing programs.
The committee inquired also into cyber bullying. Clearly there is not an adequate understanding of the nature of cyber bullying or how to deal with it. The committee made some sensible recommendations as a beginning, but what will emerge over the next five years is a need for a greater understanding of, and a wider variety of programs to deal with, cyber bullying.
We had the great pleasure to visit a number of schools during this inquiry. I was personally overwhelmed by the quality of work being done in public schools around New South Wales to address bullying, and not just when it becomes evident. Great work is being done in schools around New South Wales developing 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21541
cultures and on robustness and resilience within schools, particularly focusing on individual self-esteem and understanding the consequences of actions and group dynamics. It was pleasing to see many students and school communities tackling the issue head-on and winning the battle against bullying. It is very clear that the overwhelming majority of teachers deal with bullying in an intelligent and humanitarian way. It is important that this report is responded to and that the recommendations are adopted to give teachers and school leaders more support.
I conclude by thanking my colleagues on the committee and the Chair, who conducted the committee and the inquiry with great poise and concern. We heard very difficult evidence and navigated our way through it to make some very sensible decisions. It was good to see a committee dealing with sensitive issues with just the right amount of politics. I think we all did very well. Of course, I thank our fantastic committee staff—Beverly Duffy, Madeleine Foley, Cathryn Cummins and Kate Mihaljek. I say it every time—and it is absolutely true— that so little work would happen in this Parliament if it were not for the high quality of the staff who support our actions. We do not thank them enough because we cannot thank them enough. Whatever is good in this report is their work; whatever is bad, we as politicians must take responsibility for. However, there is not too much of that here, so we should be okay. I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.01 p.m.], in reply: I reiterate my thanks to committee members for the multipartisan way they undertook the spirit and conduct of the inquiry. They supported the on-line consultation with children and young people and the school visits to look at best practice.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ABUSE MATERIAL) BILL 2010
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos.
Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.03 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 246 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010, be called on forthwith.
There is some urgency to this matter. It is urgent that the Parliament and the public of New South Wales know the financial and economic elements that underpin the Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan. Without further ado, I trust that the House will agree to allow the matter to be debated.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 246 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith. 21542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
TRANSPORT PLAN
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.04 p.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 246 outside the Order of Precedence by omitting "14 days" and inserting instead "21 days".
Leave granted.
Motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner agreed to:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of the passing of this resolution all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Minister for Transport and Roads, the Department of Transport and Infrastructure, the Minister for Planning, and the Department of Planning, the Treasurer, NSW Treasury, the Sydney Metro Authority, RailCorp, State Transit Authority, Sydney Ferries, Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation, Public Transport Ticketing Corporation, and the Roads and Traffic Authority, relating to the Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan: Connecting the City of Cities, as announced by the Premier, Kristina Keneally, on 21 February 2010 including:
(a) any document which relates or refers to economic and financial advice, including detailed costings, forward estimate and funding models in relation to each project listed in the plan,
(b) any document from ministerial and departmental staff, consultants, transport experts, industry bodies and unions,
(c) any document, including correspondence, letters, emails, briefs and reports between the Premier, the former Premier Nathan Rees, the Minister for Transport and Roads, the Minister for Planning, the Treasurer and their respective Directors-General,
(d) any document which relates or refers to the feasibility, planning and environmental reports produced in relation to the projects listed in the Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010;
(e) any document detailing or referring to market or focus group research undertaken,
(f) any document detailing expenditure on the Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010 to date, including a breakdown of the costs associated with consultants, expert transport and financial advice and/or reports legal services and public relations and communication costs, and
(g) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.05 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 249 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding Sydney's landfill capacity, be called on forthwith.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.06 p.m.]: The Government opposes the motion. It is not urgent. The House has plenty of other business that it needs to deal with today and it should consider those matters. The Hon. Catherine Cusack is able to move this motion on private members' day tomorrow.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 20
Mr Brown Ms Hale Ms Parker Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Mrs Pavey Mr Cohen Mr Khan Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Mr Smith Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Miss Gardiner Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Harwin 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21543
Noes, 15
Mr Catanzariti Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Hatzistergos Ms Robertson Mr Kelly Mr Roozendaal Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Mr Donnelly Mr Primrose Mr West Ms Voltz
Pairs
Mr Ajaka Mr Della Bosca Mr Gallacher Ms Griffin Mr Pearce Mr Pearce
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 249 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
SYDNEY LANDFILL CAPACITY
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.14 p.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 249 outside the Order of Precedence by inserting "the Minister for Planning or the Department of Planning" after " the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water".
Leave not granted.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.14 p.m.]: I move:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within seven days of the date of the passing of this resolution any report or document into Sydney’s landfill capacity and demand, prepared for the Government by Wright Corporate Strategy in 2008, in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment or the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, and any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
The document being sought by the motion was prepared for the New South Wales Government by Wright Corporate Strategy in 2008. Wright Corporate Strategy is headed by two partners, Tony Wright and Paul Howlett. Tony Wright has chaired two major public inquiries for the New South Wales Government, the reports of which are entitled "-Alternative Waste Management Technologies and Practices Inquiry" and "Independent Public Assessment: Landfill Capacity and Demand". I understand that the latter is the title of the second report. In any event, it is the report into landfill that Mr Wright completed that was published in 2008 that we believe should be made publicly available.
This report, as we understand it, deals with Sydney's landfill capacities. Because all of these are owned or controlled by the government-owned Waste Services New South Wales, or WSN, it relates to publicly owned and managed assets. This report is of vital public interest to the waste industry, local government and consumers, who are also ratepayers and taxpayers, and the source of domestic and commercial waste that is destined for Sydney's landfill. The report is of vital public interest to planning Sydney's future. Is there too much land to be allocated or too little? The public has a right to know. Are our landfill needs being properly provided for and managed? How is the waste levy predicted to impact on future landfill demand? The public has a right to know. What are the consequences for waste policy of the findings of this report? The public has a right to know.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: They do!
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection and thank him for his support. With the sale of WSN, which holds a virtual monopoly on landfill and has diversified into other aspects 21544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
of waste management, including collection and recycling, the information contained in the report is of high immediate public interest. The Government often complains that motions such as this are little more than fishing expeditions. I point out to the Government that this motion requests a specific document. We are not asking for a whole raft of information that will require a search or that will be difficult to locate. It is one specific document, and we believe it is essential to the public interest that it be made public as soon as possible.
I acknowledge the efforts of Garth Lamb, the editor of "Inside Waste Weekly", which is a terrific little newsletter for the waste industry. Garth has been trying for many months to access this report but has received various unconvincing responses from the Government, which has declined all his freedom of information requests. My understanding is that the Minister for Planning has a copy of the report. Given that the report is at this point secret, it has been difficult to ascertain with complete confidence where the report is currently located. Because we do not want to inconvenience the Government, and we are trying to be specific in our request, we initially directed the call to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, the Hon. Frank Sartor, and his department. We now believe the report may well be with the Minister for Planning and the Department of Planning. For that reason, earlier I sought leave to amend the motion to ensure that that agency and Minister would be the subject of this request. It is obviously in everybody's interest that these matters be addressed accurately.
Unfortunately, the Government declined to grant leave for me to improve the motion. For that reason, we will have to go down the other route and seek to improve the motion by way of amendment. I thank my colleague the Hon. Don Harwin, who has indicated that he will move an amendment to that effect. I acknowledge the work of Garth Lamb of "Inside Waste Weekly". I look forward to making a copy of the document available to Garth and to the industry as a whole. This information is in the public interest and will no doubt be of great benefit to the debate about the future of our waste. It is beyond comprehension that a 2008 report could still be suppressed.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.20 p.m.]: It is extraordinary that the House is wasting time debating this motion when it has already been made clear to members that there is no need for this debate. It is a waste of time because the Wright report is already in the public domain: it is on the Department of Planning website. The Government is committed to waste avoidance and resource recovery. This commitment is reflected in the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 and associated strategy—
The Hon. Rick Colless: When was it posted on the website? Was it posted at 4.00 p.m. this afternoon?
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: It seeks to minimise the amount of waste being disposed of to landfills. The key instruments for achieving this aim are the New South Wales waste and environment levy and the justifiable demand policy for new landfill capacity, which is enshrined in State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: When did it go up?
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: For the past nine years the consideration of whether there is a justifiable demand for new landfill capacity for the Sydney region has been underpinned by the strategic framework established by Mr Tony Wright's independent review of landfill capacity and demand for the Sydney region, which was completed in September 2000.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It must have been posted after 2.00 p.m. this afternoon.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: What a waste of the House's time!
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: Mr Wright has now completed a review of the findings and recommendations of his earlier report. For the benefit of the House, Mr Wright's latest review concluded, first, waste disposal to landfill has been reasonably constant over the last decade for the Sydney region—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: When did it go up Penny?
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I can understand that Opposition members are upset because they cannot use the Internet but we might as well get the information on the record, given that it is urgent and the 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21545
House had to hear about it today. I repeat that Mr Wright's latest review concluded, first, waste disposal to landfill has been reasonably constant over the last decade for the Sydney region—at just under two million tonnes of waste a year—despite increased waste generation as a result of increased population and economic growth due to the significant increase in resource recovery; second, the New South Wales waste and environment levy is likely to drive increases in resource recovery over the next years, but despite the predicted increase in resource recovery the Sydney region is still likely to need at least 1.3 million tonnes of landfill capacity a year by 2023-24; third, the Sydney region currently has enough landfill capacity for the next 20 to 30 years but the capacity is constrained by annual waste input caps; fourth, the annual landfill capacity restrictions on landfill should be lifted immediately as they are ineffective, inequitable and insufficient to satisfy the amount of materials going to landfill; and, fifth, the justifiable demand policy should be retained for the foreseeable future to guide decision-making on development proposals for new landfill capacity.
The Government is committed to waste avoidance and resource recovery across New South Wales and it accepts the report's recommendations, with one exception. The Government has determined a phase-out of the annual waste input caps over a period of some years rather than immediate withdrawal, with phase-out by about 2014. In implementing this alternative approach the Government will seek to ensure that intermediate input caps will be distributed equitably and pitched at a level to overcome the current capacity-demand mismatch and provide appropriate contingency. As always, the Government has taken a measured and reasonable approach to managing the State's business. It needs to be repeated that the review is on the department's website; the information is in the public domain. The Hon. Catherine Cusack did not even name the correct Minister in her motion so who would believe Opposition members could find the information on the website? I appreciate that accessing the Internet is a challenge for some, but Opposition members should be able to manage it. The time of this House has been taken up completely unnecessarily. The Government opposes the motion.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [4.22 p.m.]: Before I move to amend the motion, I must comment on the extraordinary performance of the Parliamentary Secretary. Earlier this afternoon the relevant websites were checked by Opposition members and the information was not to be found. When the Government realised it was on the run, having lost a division, the information was suddenly put on the website. But the extraordinary thing is that the Parliamentary Secretary has just misled the House. She said the House was aware that the information was available when the House was not aware of it at all. Earlier this afternoon Opposition members looked at the relevant websites and the information was not there.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Which ones? Name them!
The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Hon. Catherine Cusack looked, and so did Mr Ian Cohen. What an extraordinary performance from the Parliamentary Secretary. I move:
That the question be amended by inserting "the Minister for Planning or the Department of Planning" after "the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water,".
Mr IAN COHEN [4.24 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on this call for papers. Yesterday I asked the Treasurer whether he would release the 2008 Wright report. Unsurprisingly, he seemed—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Arrogant.
Mr IAN COHEN: "Arrogant" is the appropriate word. He gave an arrogant and confusing answer to my question. In fact, he was incapable even of mentioning the Wright report in his answer. The Greens support the call for papers because it is essential to valuing WSN. As Garth Lamb, writing for "Inside Waste Weekly", stated:
The value of WSN's Sydney landfill assets will be the key determinant of the company's price tag, with the Wright Report on capacity and demand presumably an extremely useful document for anyone seeking to value the company.
I am glad that the Opposition is supportive of the inaccurate and transparent evaluation of WSN, although I am slightly confused as to why it supports the legislation to sell WSN. I must ask whether it is the 2008 report, the 2006 report or the 2000 report that is on the website, because as of a few minutes ago the earlier reports were there but not the latest one. I have real concerns about that. The Treasurer's answer yesterday was the most pathetic diversion from the democratic process that I have ever heard during question time—even given the rubbish that has gone down in this House in the past. It topped the lot. It seems to me that the Government is truly exuding pustulence from the body politic. It has lost its way. The Government is treating the House with absolute disdain and disregard. To introduce legislation on this subject at such short notice is appalling, and 21546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
I suggest that the Opposition would do well to be more oppositional. We have been treated in this fashion yet the Opposition will support the legislation. That is pretty pathetic. Opposition members should get some backbone. The Government has passed its use-by date in treating the Parliament in this way and flogging off a public asset. The situation should be reassessed.
The Hon. IAN WEST [4.27 p.m.]: The New South Wales Government is committed to waste avoidance and resource recovery across New South Wales. The Government's commitment is reflected in the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 and associated strategy, and it seeks to minimise the amount of waste being disposed of to landfills. The key policy to effect change in this regard is the New South Wales waste and environment levy. The justifiable demand for new landfill proposals remains a vexed issue in the merit assessment of landfill proposals. To impose some order—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Have you got the right speech?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Melinda Pavey that interjections are disorderly at all times. If the Hon. Melinda Pavey wishes to contribute to the debate rather than make interjections, she should stand and seek the call at the appropriate time.
The Hon. IAN WEST: To impose some order on the assessment of justifiable demand in the highly competitive Sydney putrescible landfill market, in 2000 the former Minister appointed Mr Tony Wright, an independent waste expert, to conduct an independent public assessment of landfill capacity and demand. This report was completed and released in September 2000. In 2008 the former Minister agreed that the strategic framework needed to be updated to take into account the changes that have occurred in the industry over the past nine years, and to provide a better framework for assessing the merits of any new waste proposals. Tony Wright was again commissioned to prepare the review. The resulting Wright report presents the outcomes of an independent public review of putrescible waste landfill capacity and demand for the Sydney region.
The review was commissioned to provide advice on future waste infrastructure need and to update the "Independent Public Assessment—Landfill Capacity and Demand". The review process benefited from submissions made by stakeholders, including waste industry contractors and environment groups. The Department of Environment and Climate Change provided waste disposal and resource recovery data. Discussions were held with various stakeholders and these proved very useful in clarifying issues and eliminating viewpoints. As with the 2000 landfill assessment, the centrepiece of this review is a detailed analysis of current and future landfill capacity and demand. The demand analysis covers the period from 2009 to 2024. It is based on plausible scenarios of investment in waste processing infrastructure that is needed to divert waste material that would otherwise be sent to putrescible waste landfill.
The Government accepts the report's recommendations, with one exception. The review recommends that waste input caps should be immediately discarded as a regulatory measure. The Government has determined that the phasing out of the annual waste input caps over a period of some years rather than immediate withdrawal is a more appropriate response, with phase-out by about 2014 when alignment between the landfill gate price and the alternative waste technology [AWT] gate price is fully reached. In implementing this alternative approach the Government will seek to ensure that intermediate input caps will be distributed equitably and pitched at a level to overcome the current capacity-demand mismatch and provide appropriate contingency. There is no need for this motion. It is an unjustifiable waste of the House's time, particularly given that the Wright report is published on the Department of Planning website.
Dr JOHN KAYE [4.31 p.m.]: This may be a case of the wrong Wright report. I understand the Wright report on the website is a 2000 document.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Is that the right report or the wrong report?
Dr JOHN KAYE: No, that is the wrong Wright report. The report we seek is a 2008 document. What is in a 2000 document and what is in a subsequent document may be two different analyses and outcomes. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary cannot speak in this debate again. Before the Hon. Catherine Cusack speaks in reply, I encourage another Labor member to clarify this issue.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Give us the Web address.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Give us the Web address and give us time to check whether it is correct. The Government knows full well that the 2000 report is not the report we seek. The Government knows full well that we seek the subsequent report. If the Government is fair dinkum in its criticism of this motion, let it put up and show that it is fair dinkum by giving us the Web address. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21547
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Table it.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Table it, as was suggested by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, and we will check it. Perhaps we will be proved wrong. I suspect we will not be proved wrong.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Table the report.
Dr JOHN KAYE: If the 2008 document is on the Web, print it, table it and let us be done with the matter. Let us not waste any more time over this issue. If the 2008 report is on the Web, I want to know when it went on the Web. I have a suspicion there may be people beavering away right now putting it on the Web.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [4.34 p.m.]: I am going to start the right way. This is a complete joke. We have made it perfectly clear that this is a Government committed to due process. The last Government speaker provided a detailed report to the House and the document is in the public domain. This is an Opposition bereft of ideas, lazy and unimaginative. Rather than develop meaningful policies, the best it can do is chew up public resources in pursuit of trivia.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Truth.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I spoke about the lack of truth on that side of the House earlier today. On this side of the House we speak the truth. This is a ridiculous request. It proves that some people will put game playing ahead of good government and the proper use of government resources. If approved, this will be a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money. It is an unjustified diversion of resources away from the business of running public services. I take the House back to another recent call for papers and the cost that fatuous exercise imposed on the public purse. Over two days of hearings the inquiry called 18 witnesses, including the Minister for Planning, the former Minister for Planning, government officials, industry experts and community members. As well as providing its own submission, the Department of Planning provided five witnesses on the first day of hearing, 29 September 2009, and six witnesses on the second day of hearing, 19 October 2009.
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. Although the member's analysis of another call for papers may be interesting, the matter is not relevant. Madam President, I ask that you rule on the relevance of this discussion about an inquiry that has nothing to do with the single document that we are seeking.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: To the point of order: I am referring to the calls for papers that we deal with in this House and the inquiries that are conducted on sometimes, not always—I register those words strongly—spurious issues. I am speaking about those matters in relation to this inquiry.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There are two matters to be considered. The first is the general issue of calls for papers, which the Hon. Christine Robertson is addressing, and the second is about the specifics of the call for papers as contained in Private Members' Business item No. 249. Accordingly, there is no point of order.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The department also diverted significant resources to the call for papers associated with that inquiry and responded to questions on notice within the committee's time frame. I am advised that in total the department spent about $180,000 and 1,400 hours of staff time on the parliamentary inquiry and the previous call for papers. We now ask for sanity to prevail. This is a game. The issue has been thoroughly investigated and a report has been published. In discussions with the advisers, any issue that has been brought forward during this debate will be remedied as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we waste a phenomenal amount of government resources and the time of this House on these aggressive calls for papers. It is currently under investigation. The 2008 Wright report definitely will be publicly available.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.38 p.m.], in reply: We are having an extraordinary afternoon in the Legislative Council. I have just been accused of aggressively moving a motion that calls for a report. For the benefit of the House, the motion refers to "the Wright Corporate Strategy in 2008". The year "2008" is clearly indicated in the motion. If the Government thinks it can direct us to the 2000 report on the website it is being too smart by half. The comments of the Hon. Penny Sharpe, who commenced her remarks by announcing that the House had already been advised that this report was available, were completely misleading and incorrect. That was either a sentence that she improvised at the beginning of her speech and was a mistake or it was written into her speech by a person who knew that it was an incorrect assertion and was misleading to the House. The report 21548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
was not available on the website when I checked a few minutes before 4 o'clock prior to moving this motion. I contacted the Treasurer's office at 2 o'clock and was told that the report was not available, and that advice was given to me again at 3.30 this afternoon.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Which website?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: A staff member from the Treasurer's office gave me this information. At 2 o'clock this afternoon he indicated to me that the report was not publicly available and at 3.30 p.m. the same words were repeated to me by a person from the Treasurer's office, which I understood was a fact that we all understood in this House, as Mr Ian Cohen has indicated. At 2 o'clock this afternoon I telephoned the office of the Minister for Planning as a courtesy—and not aggressively—to let him know that I would be amending the motion to include the Minister for Planning in relation to where the call for papers was directed. I asked at that time if the Government was going to oppose the motion and I was advised at about 3.50 p.m. that the Government would oppose the motion.
The Government had numerous opportunities to inform a member that a report was already available, but none of those opportunities was taken. I know why the Government did not take that opportunity; it was because the report was not available. I accept as correct the advice that the Government has given me every step of the way in relation to this matter. I referred earlier in my remarks to Garth Lamb from Inside Waste Weekly and his valiant efforts to obtain a copy of this report. I was amused by the Hon. Christine Robertson's statement at the beginning of her contribution that this is a Government that is committed to due process. All this transparency happening in the Chamber is making me feel light-headed. I will read this article from Inside Waste Weekly to give an indication of the struggle that has been going on to get this report. The article is dated Tuesday 9 March—not a very long time ago—and is headed "Sydney's secret: landfill capacity". It reads:
Inside Waste's request under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 to obtain a copy of the report on Sydney's landfill capacity and demand, prepared for the NSW Government by Wright Corporate Strategy in 2008, has been formally denied. The state's reasoning for why there is a "compelling argument for the weight of public interest being against disclosure" makes for interesting reading.
Inside Waste editor Garth Lamb was advised the report "is with the Minister for Planning with recommendations from the department including that it be submitted to Cabinet for consideration".
"It is a report which may have a significant part to play in NSW waste policy for years to come, and the hope of the department is that it will be published as soon as possible. That, however, will not happen unless it is authorised by the Minister for Planning and … Cabinet."
"Disclosure of the report by this department prior to its consideration by the Minister and Cabinet would undoubtedly disrupt the Government's decision making process."
That is why we are being told that the report cannot be released: Apparently, it will disrupt the Government's decision-making process. The article continues:
The response goes on to outline the report was written in the context of a duopoly in Class 1 landfill disposal, with "WSN and Veolia in direct and robust competition," and suggest for the report "to be disclosed at this point may allow one side on the competitive field to have access to the report before the other.
Whoever signed this letter to Mr Lamb is looking very foolish in the wake of the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary today. The article goes on:
"Disclosing the report now would be for the Department to take an action knowing it may advantage one side over the other in the market. This would place the market's and public's perception of the Department as objective and neutral at serious risk. It may well also skew the marketplace."
"[This] would therefore have a substantial adverse effect on the Department's effective performance of its policy-making functions."
In a somewhat confusing dot point, Inside Waste was informed the planning department is "following a process for the development of waste disposal policy which is open and transparent", but disclosure of the report would "detract rather than add to that process".
"Ministers of the Crown, and Cabinet itself, should be free to conduct their business without the public effectively 'looking over their shoulder' at every stage of the deliberations and speculation about what might be done and why."
"Premature release to the public of tentative and partially considered policy matters may encourage ill informed speculation about the content of a policy not yet finalised and approved." 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21549
What a load of poppycock this person who has been trying to access this report has been putting up with. Dr John Kaye took a point of order earlier and I understand that that was ruled out, but I say to the Government that I supported his point of order in the sense that it was giving—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You are canvassing the Chair's ruling.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I am not canvassing the Chair's ruling.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Yes, you are.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Allow me to finish. It was an incorrect point of order. As I have indicated, I supported the President's ruling but it gave the Government valuable time to locate the website address because the Parliamentary Secretary has clearly indicated that this document is available on the website. I acknowledge the assistance of my colleague the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, who is very vigilant about these issues. One cannot accept just anything the Government says; one has to check it. The website of the Department of Planning indicates on What's New that as of 17 March, today, only one document is listed as being new—the metropolitan review discussion paper released. It does not state a time; it just lists the date as 17 March. That discussion paper is clearly not the document that is the subject of the call for papers today. The document that is the subject of the call does not appear to be on the department's website.
I was hoping that a member of the Government would come forward and give us some reasonable explanation as to why such a robust statement would be made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The only explanation we have had was from the Hon. Christine Robertson, who tells us that any issue raised in the debate today requiring rectification will be rectified. I assume that the issue that requires rectification is the entire contribution made by the Hon. Penny Sharpe asserting, I felt in an aggressive way, that the document was already listed on the website, when clearly, it is not. Despite our best efforts, we could not find it. We urge members to support this amendment, as politely foreshadowed to the Minister for Planning earlier today. I urge all members of the House to press forward with information because as of this moment we cannot be confident that the advice given to the Chamber by the Government is correct. We believe this report ought to have been released sometime ago, but at least by passage of information we can be confident it will be released within the week.
Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Don Harwin be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 19
Mr Brown Ms Hale Ms Parker Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Mrs Pavey Mr Cohen Mr Khan Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Miss Gardiner Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Harwin
Noes, 15
Mr Catanzariti Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Hatzistergos Ms Robertson Mr Kelly Mr Roozendaal Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Mr Donnelly Mr Primrose Mr West Ms Voltz 21550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
Pairs
Mr Ajaka Mr Della Bosca Mr Gallacher Ms Griffin Mr Pearce Mr Macdonald
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion as amended agreed to.
CREDIT (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.57 p.m.], in reply: Prior to the interruption to this debate I was responding to some of the issues raised by members. When the New South Wales Government introduced the cap it provided information on the alternatives to high-cost credit to targeted areas where fringe lenders were prevalent, with letterbox drops and posters in places where vulnerable consumers were likely to go. Many such consumers were borrowing for bills that could have been paid off in instalments, or for goods that could have been obtained with a no-interest loan, which consumers acknowledge enable them to borrow with dignity. In addition, the Government has provided and is continuing to provide funding for administering no-interest loans so that significantly more loans can be provided.
The New South Wales Government has also increased funds for financial counselling services, which means that consumers can get assistance and advice on their financial problems. Not only can these services negotiate with credit providers to pay debts at an affordable rate but they can also advise on what other assistance is available that does not include more extortionate borrowing. Most high-cost lenders are not doing any favours to vulnerable consumers; they are simply increasing their problems.
The debate on this bill has also raised issues about whether the Commonwealth Government will keep the maximum interest rate cap. The new Commonwealth legislation imposes different regulatory requirements on lenders. The legislation requires that lenders are licensed and in order to get a licence they will have to prove that they are "fit and proper persons". Lenders will also be subject to responsible lending requirements, which will mean they can lend to a person only after they have assessed the consumer's capacity to repay the loan and that the loan is not an unsuitable product for the consumer. This examination will determine if provisions such as a maximum interest rate cap are necessary. The New South Wales Government decided to keep the cap for 12 months to allow the Commonwealth to compare how the national legislation works in States that do not impose an interest rate cap and those States, such as New South Wales, that do.
Dr John Kaye raised concerns about whether the Commonwealth Government will be able to ensure compliance with its new legislation. One of the conditions of licensing is that industry members belong to an Australian Securities and Investments Commission approved external dispute resolution [EDR] scheme. One of the functions of EDR schemes is to provide a no-cost system of obtaining redress. Determinations by these schemes are binding on industry members, and the more cases dealt with against a member the more it costs that member. This is a very effective way of ensuring that consumers are dealt with fairly and lenders or brokers comply with legislative requirements.
With respect to compliance, I am advised that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has undertaken a massive recruitment drive, so there will be at least as many, and likely more, compliance personnel as there are urgent situations that arise across the States. I understand that it has been provided with a substantial budget to administer the new legislation. New South Wales has been co-operating with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to ensure a seamless transition in terms of compliance activity, and the commission is fully aware of problem areas that will need close attention. I am advised further that the new bill should allow for the Commonwealth to deal with local issues quickly.
One of the major reasons that industry and consumer advocates alike have supported this referral of power is that the current system requires the agreement of all jurisdictions to change or amend the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, which can be too cumbersome to provide a policy response to urgent local issues. The 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21551
centralisation of the policy role means that the Commonwealth Government will be able to respond to urgent issues very quickly and, in addition, that it will have the power to make regulations should unscrupulous industry players try to avoid the law.
Concerns were raised by the Legislation Review Committee about the appropriateness of adopting Commonwealth legislation that includes strict liability offences, in particular, where a penalty of imprisonment is concerned. As was explained in the other place, it should be noted that offences in the code needed to be revised to comply with the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The Commonwealth consulted with the States to ensure that the original policy intention of the State-based legislation was imported into the Commonwealth version of the offences. While the State-based legislation does not include imprisonment as a penalty, the Commonwealth has given its assurances that the imposition of such a penalty would be applied only in extreme circumstances, such as when lesser penalties have failed to change a particular trader's behaviour and where that behaviour has severe detriment to consumers.
I understand that there is some unease about the potential for clauses in the Commonwealth legislation that would permit subordinate legislation, such as regulations, to amend or take precedence over the principal legislation The Commonwealth considers the regulatory power to be necessary because of the considerable avoidance practices of the fringe lending industry. I point out that the Commonwealth legislature has the power to disallow regulations if it considers them to inappropriately delegate legislative power. The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has also had to be satisfied in relation to this issue, and I can assure the House that those matters were considered by the Commonwealth Parliament and that the legislation was passed after careful scrutiny. I understand that the Minister will shortly be responding to correspondence from the Legislation Review Committee on this matter.
Consumers in New South Wales and Australia will benefit as a result of this bill through nationally consistent consumer protection laws. All credit providers and brokers will be required to be licensed and to be members of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission approved external dispute resolution scheme. Lenders and brokers will also be subject to responsible lending conduct requirements to ensure they assess a consumer's capacity to repay a loan and do not provide an unsuitable product. The bill also provides savings for industry by cutting red tape. Consumer credit and broking will sit under one government with a single regulator as opposed to the current State-based schemes with their different requirements. The new nationally consistent consumer credit legislation will ensure that consumers remain protected.
I conclude by thanking all the Fair Trading officers, who work day in day out supporting consumers who contact them for assistance with their consumer credit complaints and inquiries. With the exception of the interim retention of the cap on interest and fees for one year and certain requirements for brokers until the Commonwealth enacts equivalent provisions, this bill marks the end of the involvement of New South Wales in credit regulation. We can be proud of our contribution. We have created a fair and open marketplace for industry whilst we have maintained vital protections for vulnerable consumers. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe. 21552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
GAS SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 2009
Second Reading
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.04 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is my privilege to introduce the Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2009, which will amend the Gas Supply Act 1996 to consolidate regulatory authority for gasfitting, autogas mechanics, gas installations and gas appliances within NSW Fair Trading. The bill implements recommendations of the Better Regulation Office's targeted review, reforming arrangements for regulating gasfitting, gas installations and appliances. Changes to relevant regulations are also required and are detailed in a draft regulation that is tabled for public comment today. Specifically, the bill as two main objectives. Firstly, it will make it clear that NSW Fair Trading is the sole agency with regulatory responsibility for gas installations, gasfitting work and autogas work. Industry and Investment NSW is confirmed as the regulatory authority for work involving the installation or replacement of a gas meter. Secondly, the bill will clarify the definition of a "gas installation" and of "gasfitting work" and will ensure that definitions are consistent across all relevant legislation.
These reforms are the result of a review led by the Better Regulation Office. The review was in response to concerns raised by industry that the regulatory framework for gasfitting, gas installations and gas appliances did not work well, resulting in confusion and potential gaps in compliance. This in turn created unnecessary red tape and could potentially compromise safety outcomes. The review was completed by the Better Regulation Office in close consultation with the four government agencies involved in gas regulation in New South Wales and key industry stakeholders, such as gas industry associations, network operators, and gasfitters. Prior to these reforms, the regulation of gasfitters, gasfitting work, installations and appliances was spread across four agencies: NSW Fair Trading, Industry and Investment NSW, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the WorkCover Authority. Often there was confusion between agencies as to which had authority for particular issues. Under this bill, all four agencies will retain some regulatory responsibility with regard to gas. However, the scope of their responsibility will be better aligned to their core roles in government, and more clearly defined.
The reforms will in effect create a one-stop-shop for consumer gas issues in NSW Fair Trading, reducing costs and improving access to information and advice for industry and consumers. The particular roles of each agency remain: WorkCover for maintaining workplace safety, the Roads and Traffic Authority for ensuring that roads and vehicles are kept safe, and Industry and Investment NSW for managing energy infrastructure. It is important to note that this bill will not affect the standard to which gasfitters and autogas mechanics must work, or the standards to which installations and appliances must be constructed and maintained. The bill will improve the management of gas regulation, assign roles to the appropriate agencies, make life easier for industry and consumers, and cut red tape. These reforms will remove gaps in the regulatory framework, and facilitate better compliance enforcement, and that will ensure that the overall safety of gas infrastructure in New South Wales is improved.
I now turn to refer in detail to the two core amendments contained in the bill. The bill makes it clear that NSW Fair Trading is the sole agency with regulatory responsibility for gas installations, gasfitting work and autogas work. Fair Trading is the licensing authority for gasfitters and autogas mechanics under the Home Building Act 1989. However, the standards to which they work were contained in regulations that came under the authority of Industry and Investment NSW. There was also a designated role for the WorkCover Authority. This arrangement is the result of having two Ministers responsible for the Gas Supply Act 1989. In particular, sections 83 and 83A provide for regulations to be made with respect to certain matters. Those made under section 83 are the responsibility of the Minister for Energy, and those under section 83A are the responsibility of the Minister for Fair Trading.
Section 83, for which the Minister for Energy is responsible, provided for regulations relating to gasfitting and autogas; however, those functions should be more appropriately regulated by Fair Trading. That arrangement led to confusion among tradespeople and consumers. It was found that issues brought to government often took a long time to reach the appropriate person or team responsible, and therefore took too long to resolve. As such, the bill re-arranges the matters that are within the purview of each Minister. The power to make regulations with respect to gas installations, gasfitting work, autogas installations and autogas work is now found in section 83A and is therefore clearly the responsibility of the Minister for Fair Trading. The bill 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21553
confirms that the carrying out of work involving the installation or replacement of a gas meter or any part of the basic metering equipment remains a matter dealt with under section 83 and is the responsibility of the Minister for Energy.
As well as helping to improve certainty for consumers and industry, these changes are being made because the authority responsible for licensing gasfitters and autogas mechanics should also have responsibility for setting and enforcing standards. NSW Fair Trading will become responsible for the standards to which gasfitters and autogas mechanics must work. This will provide a more effective regime for enforcing compliance by licensed gasfitters, handling complaints and resolving disputes. The applicable standards will continue to be those developed by Standards Australia and referenced in the regulations, which are the responsibility of the Minister for Fair Trading. Now, therefore, if a complaint is made about gasfitting work, or if a gasfitting licence should be revoked, NSW Fair Trading has unambiguous authority to act. To facilitate this change, the bill gives inspectors appointed under the Fair Trading Act 1987 powers in relation to gasfitting, installations and appliances.
The second main function of the bill is to clarify the definitions of the key terms "basic metering equipment", "consumer service", "gas appliance", "gas container", "gas installation", "gas installation end point", "gas network", "gas supply point", and "gasfitting work". The most significant clarification relates to the definitions of "gas installation" and "gasfitting work". The bill ensures that definitions are consistent across all relevant legislation. Inconsistency in the definition of a gas installation across relevant pieces of legislation is one source of the uncertainty. For example, the Gas Supply Act defines an installation as "the gas pipes and associated equipment that are used to convey gas within premises to which gas is supplied". However, the Gas Supply (Safety and Network Management) Regulation 2008 defines gasfitting work as "maintenance of any part of a gas installation up to the gas meter outlet" and is silent on the significance of the premises boundary.
The bill clarifies that a "gas installation" means any pipe or system of pipes used to convey or control gas, and any associated fittings and equipment that are downstream of the "gas supply point", but does not include anything beyond the "gas installation end point". The "gas supply point" means, in the case of a gas installation to which gas is supplied from a gas network, the outlet of the gas meter at which the gas is supplied. The "gas installation end point" means, in the case of a gas installation to which gas is supplied from a gas network, the gas outlet socket. This means that the installation is all of the piping from the meter up to the appliance, but not including the appliance.
The qualifications and standards that apply to gasfitting work on "gas installations" are contained in the associated draft regulation. In redefining key terms, the bill clarifies that changing a "pigtail" is not considered to be gasfitting work. A pigtail is a short length of small bore pipe or a hose assembly used for the high-pressure connection between a liquid petroleum gas cylinder and the cylinder regulator or the cylinder manifold. The clarification is required in light of the decision in the recent court case Deborah Lynn Webber & Others v West Lindfield Bowling Club Co-op [2008]. In that case the court interpreted the definition of "gasfitting" to include any work on a pigtail if it requires the use of a spanner.
Pigtails were deemed to be within the definition of an installation, and any work on them, such as replacing a worn or defective pigtail, had to be performed by a licensed gasfitter. A pigtail is a simple device that can be easily and safely replaced by anyone with a bare minimum of technical skill. Some gas cylinder delivery companies have for a long time carried spare pigtails in their delivery vans. The spare pigtails are used to replace worn or defective pigtails, free of charge, before attaching a new gas cylinder. This service helped to keep consumers' cylinders safe. The effect of the court judgement was that if gas cylinder delivery staff found a worn or defective pigtail in the course of their delivery duties, they could not replace it.
Given that the pigtail is an often neglected but vital safety item, the judgement will lead to an increase in the number of worn or defective pigtails remaining in operation, with a consequently significant increase in the risk of gas-related incidents occurring. An alternative is for gas delivery staff to be licensed gasfitters. Not only would that lead to the underutilisation of skilled gasfitters, but it would also increase the cost of a cylinder delivery. To avoid those situations, the bill instead clarifies that changing a pigtail does not fall within the definition of "gasfitting work" if it is designed to be readily detachable from the installation, whether by the use of a tool, mechanical force or otherwise.
Gas cylinder companies will be required, under normal occupational health and safety laws, to ensure that their staff are trained to replace pigtails safely. Consumer safety will not be compromised. In the absence of any evidence of a significant or systemic problem or risk that would require regulatory intervention, it should be 21554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
the responsibility of home owners to ensure their installation is safe, through periodic inspection by a licensed gasfitter. The amendments contained in this bill will make life a lot simpler for everyone who uses gas. Consumers will be able to go to just one agency—NSW Fair Trading—for help when they need it. Gas network providers will gain clarity over the boundary of their responsibilities. Gasfitters and autogas mechanics will be working to standards set by just one agency—NSW Fair Trading.
The four government agencies that regulate different aspects of gas—Industry and Investment, NSW Fair Trading, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the WorkCover Authority—will now have clear boundaries in their respective roles. It will be a simpler process to identify who should deal with issues as they arise. This bill is, yet again, evidence of the Government's drive to cut red tape. I commend the bill to the House
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.15 p.m.]: The Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Gas Supply Act 1996 to make further provisions and to clarify the regulatory framework in relation to gas fitting work, autogas work, gas installations, autogas installations and gas appliances. The main object of the bill is to amend the Gas Supply Act 1996 to allow for the responsibility for standards and requirements relating to gasfitting work and autogas work to be transferred to the Minister for Fair Trading.
The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals will not oppose the bill. However, I will address some of the concerns that stakeholders have raised. At the outset I must say that the Government almost got it right with this bill. That is probably the only praise that the Government has enjoyed in a while. The Government actually briefed the Opposition on the proposed legislation. Staff from the Minister's office provided the Opposition with a detailed briefing note, much of which we have heard recounted by the Parliamentary Secretary today. In accordance with usual practice, the Opposition talked to stakeholders, took the matter to shadow Cabinet and presented a petition to the joint party room. The Government then introduced the bill in the lower House. While Government members were making their contributions to the bill in the other place, the Minister introduced amendments to the bill, obviously without advising Government members of them. Certainly the Opposition had not been told about them. They were introduced into the lower House while the agreement in principle debate was underway.
The Government showed early promise with the bill, but things have become absolutely chaotic yet again. The Government just cannot get it right. In desperation we contacted the departmental officers who had briefed us on the legislation in the first place and we found out that in the short time between our first briefing and the bill's introduction at least one of their number had left the department. We were not surprised, as I am sure others throughout New South Wales who read Hansard would not have been. It is yet another indication of everything the Government does—even when it tries to do the right thing—turning to rubbish. And sadly, that is why this earnest, good, enthusiastic, new Parliamentary Secretary, who has carriage of the bill here today—
[Interruption]
Would the Hon. Helen Westwood like to have had this crap served up for her to bring to the House? The Hon. Michael Veitch had to read a briefing note, which everyone has seen, that in the usual course would have been incorporated in Hansard as part of a second reading speech. Once again the Government is wasting time, playing with the hours, pretending that it is doing some work when it is not. It is unfortunate that the Government uses good members like the Hon. Michael Veitch—and probably the Hon. Helen Westwood—in this way.
Up until 2004 the Master Plumbers Association of New South Wales made constant references to the Government in submissions on training, licensing and regulation about the lack of a single regulator to control the operations of gasfitting work in the area, but to no avail. During 2004, however, the issue was given great prominence in discussion on the introduction of the Gas Supply (Gas Appliances) Regulation 2004, in the formulation of a regulation. But again the matter was dismissed. The gas industry has always had great concerns about the failure to nominate a specific regulator for this work and has never been satisfied with the ad hoc arrangement of the regulations. In the past WorkCover NSW was called in to investigate an incident involving a gas leakage that resulted in an explosion. Other incidents were the domain of the Department of Fair Trading. According to the Master Plumbers Association, there has always been a reluctance on the part of single regulators to claim jurisdiction. In June 2009 the Better Regulation Office completed a review on reforming arrangements for regulating gasfitting, gas installations and appliances.
The object of the bill is to implement the recommendations contained in the review report. Industry has worked with the Government on better regulation in this area, and the bill is a product of that work. Industry 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21555
largely supports the bill and states that it will "fix up no man's land", the area of gasfitting work that takes place between the meter and the appliance. The Master Plumbers Association has concerns about the lag time in the process of penalty to prosecution of practitioners who undertake non-compliant or illegal work.
The bill and regulation now directly link gasfitting work to the Minister of Fair Trading, and, as a consequence, penalties and prosecutions under the Home Building Act 1989. Division 2, clauses 30, 31 and 32, deal directly with the issuing by a licensed gasfitter of certificates of inspection, the attachment or detachment of compliance plates to installations, and the issuing of defect notices. The Master Plumbers Association believes these are critical safety factors for consumers when an installation is found to be defective. The investigation of that defect by the regulator must be immediate and, if required, lead to the issuing of a penalty and/or prosecution in a short time. The Master Plumbers Association believes that without such immediate action the gasfitting industry can have no confidence that the introduction of the bill and the regulation will bring about a change in the culture of some practitioners who readily ignore the standards and place the public at risk.
The Government plans to communicate these increases in compliance through briefings to peak industry bodies, and information brochures distributed at events, particularly in the home and building industry. However, according to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the gasfitter should be required to hand the customer a flyer—either at the point of sale or upon a contract being entered—that outlines what unacceptable work is and the steps the customer can take to remedy this, namely through the Office of Fair Trading. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre maintains that for consumer education to be effective the information needs to be in the consumer's hands at the time it is relevant, rather than being provided through a general advertising campaign that may or may not get to the right people.
The Master Plumbers Association suggests that the Government, in enacting this new legislation, should go the next step and expedite the review of the Home Building Act 1989 and launch an advertising campaign to members of the public on the need to require the gasfitter doing work on their property to issue them with a certificate of inspection and have them view the compliance plate on the installation. While there were no stakeholder arguments strongly in opposition to the bill, more information is needed about how the new regulations will be effectively policed and whether the Office of Fair Trading will employ enough extra compliance/licensing officers.
The Government has informed us that it will employ seven new specialist compliance employees that will be based at Parramatta. But whether this will be enough to cover the changes across the whole State is questionable and remains to be seen. And I know the Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Michael Veitch is wondering how seven compliance officers based at Parramatta will look after gasfitting in Young. The Government maintains that there will be no increase in licensee costs for plumbers over and above the consumer price index. We have heard this before. We will watch closely to make sure that this is in fact the case. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.
Dr JOHN KAYE [5.25 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak to the Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2009, which contains a number of regulatory changes in respect of natural gas. The amendments clarify a number of matters and are largely sensible. However, I will echo some of the comments made by the shadow Minister for Industry relating to issues surrounding compliance and safety. The Office of Fair Trading is to be given a regulatory responsibility for gas installation, gasfitting work and autogas. As other speakers have pointed out, this was previously spread across four agencies: the Office of Fair Trading, Industry and Investment NSW, the Roads and Traffic Authority and WorkCover.
It is absolutely true that whenever more than one regulatory agency is involved in an industry there are opportunities for confusion on the part of both the suppliers and consumers, and also for regulatory cracks to appear into which issues can fall. Having a single regulator—which, as has been pointed out before, has been opposed in the past—is a sensible one-stop shop. It will close the cracks and there will be clarity for players on both sides of the market as to who they should turn to, and it will ensure that they can find somebody who can address their issues.
That having been said, I remind members that the Office of Fair Trading has, to be polite about it, a mixed record when it comes to protecting consumers and in relation to regulatory activities. We hope that the additional responsibilities given to the Office of Fair Trading will be taken seriously by that office and will result in improved regulatory activity. The bill adds a power of inspection to the Office of Fair Trading, and that 21556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
is a sensible step forward and hopefully will be used to secure the safety of gas fittings. There are a number of issues associated with gasfittings, including asphyxiation and fire, and they must be taken very seriously, particularly by the Office of Fair Trading.
These changes will require additional staff and resources for the Office of Fair Trading. They will require a Minister who is focused on the organisation and on the need for the organisation to develop a culture of compliance that secures safe and fair outcomes for consumers. That means a change for the Office of Fair Trading. It means we need a Minister who is prepared to work to cause the Office of Fair Trading to focus on these needs. The bill clarifies the distinction between what is a consumer's premises and what is a gas supply system. The meter remains the regulatory responsibility of the Minister for Energy, and everything else upstream of the supply point is a gas installation.
The bill clarifies the issue of pigtails and says quite sensibly that pigtails are not required to be fitted by a licensed gas fitter. This was in response to a court case that found, rather surprisingly, that because a spanner was required to be used in the fitting of a pigtail a licence was also required. I wonder where such a judgement came from and what principles of law informed it. It strikes me as rather bizarre to say that anything that requires the use of a spanner requires a licence. If one extends that principle to items being sold by IKEA, for example, it may be concluded that a licence would be required for them as well. The cost implication of requiring a licensed gasfitter to adjust pigtails is obvious and horrendous. However, an appropriate level of training for people in charge of changing pigtails still needs to be provided. If pigtails are fitted incorrectly they are dangerous. As Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes pointed out earlier, pigtails have a left-handed thread. I must admit that in the past I have been confused and have had difficulty with pigtails—
The Hon. Helen Westwood: You should not have any difficulty turning to the left!
Dr JOHN KAYE: Indeed. I was looking at it from the wrong side no doubt. It looked like a right-handed thread. I thank the Hon. Helen Westwood for that interjection. The Greens encourage the Minister to monitor and assess the outcomes—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Sometimes you can't turn any further to the left.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I also acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Duncan Gay. The Greens continue to encourage the Minister to monitor and assess the application of this legislation to determine whether some kind of formal licensing, or other qualification requirements, should be imposed on the fitting of pigtails. The Greens also encourage the Minister to explore the labelling on gas bottles with installation instructions. Many customers, particularly in remote areas, install their own gas bottles and pigtails. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it would be sensible to require gas bottles to be clearly labelled with a set of foolproof instructions on pigtail installation. The Greens also agree with the Public Interest Advisory Centre and the Master Plumbers Association about the need to secure quality compliance, which means a regime of inspections. The bill implements the recommendations of the June 2009 report of the Better Regulation Office—for once, the Greens find themselves on the side of the Better Regulation Office. Other pieces of legislation that have come before this House from that office have been more an expression of deregulation ideology—
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: As opposed to anything you do in the Chamber.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I do not think I have ever done anything in this Chamber to express deregulation ideology. It would be more an expression of ideology that leads one to go home at night and say, "Honey, I shrunk the Government!" For once, this was motivated by practical concerns and, for once, the Better Regulation Office has largely got it right. The Greens do not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.33 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2010, which will amend the Gas Supply Act 1996 to consolidate regulatory authority for gasfitting, autogas mechanics, gas installations and gas appliances within NSW Fair Trading. The bill will also better define regulatory coverage through clarifying the definitions of gas installations and appliances. We should have had similar legislation to deal with the problems New South Wales has faced with the pink batts insulation scheme because appropriate health and safety regulations were not put in place before it commenced. Parents of children with respiratory problems and asthma have complained that gas heaters installed in classrooms with no outside flues are affecting their children's health because the gas remains in the classrooms. The director general of education has said that this does not present a problem if windows are left open, but during winter windows are usually kept shut. I ask the Government to investigate this matter further. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21557
The bill will ensure that the standards to which gasfitters and autogas mechanics must work are the responsibility of Fair Trading NSW, and that that agency is responsible for non-network supplied appliances and portable gas appliances. The bill also defines installations that connect to networks as beginning at the outlet of the gas meter, clarifying that an installation that connects to a cylinder does not include the pigtail, and making the definition of "installation" consistent across all relevant legislation. I have a very efficient gas heater at home but it recently stopped working. I was puzzled as to how to get it to function again so I got a mechanic to fix it. The people involved in the gas industry require special skills. They should be properly qualified and Fair Trading inspectors should keep an eye on this situation. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.36 p.m.]: I support the Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2010. The bill will simplify life for gasfitters, autogas mechanics, manufacturers of gas appliances, and consumers by providing for NSW Fair Trading to be a one-stop shop for all gasfitting, installation and appliance issues. I recently had to work my way through the maze on behalf of my elderly mother, and I am very pleased to see the Government introducing this one-stop-shop approach. NSW Fair Trading will also continue to be responsible for licensing autogas mechanics and checking that they operate to the required standards. However, the Roads and Traffic Authority will continue to set registration requirements, and specialist authorised inspection stations will continue to check that autogas installations meet those registration requirements. These changes have arisen as a result of a review of the legislation by the Better Regulation Office, and earlier speakers have referred to the good work of that office. The Better Regulation Office identified a need to enhance the clarity of coverage of some elements of the gas regulatory system.
Although NSW Fair Trading was the agency responsible for licensing gasfitters, the standards to which they must work were set in regulations managed by Industry and Investment NSW. Furthermore, within that regulatory framework the WorkCover Authority was the approval authority for the design format of compliance plates and certificates of inspection for installations that were connected to non-network gas. This bill ends that confusing arrangement. As a result of amendments in the bill, NSW Fair Trading will not only license gasfitters, but also be responsible for ensuring compliance with appropriate Australian Standards for gasfitting work. Now, if a complaint is made about gasfitting work, or if a gasfitting licence should be revoked, NSW Fair Trading has unambiguous authority to act. This should ensure that the general safety of gas installations improves. While the vast majority of tradespeople work to very high standards, the bill will enable NSW Fair Trading to focus its efforts on an inspection regime to identify the few instances of poor work and faulty installations and appliances.
NSW Fair Trading is establishing seven new positions to implement an effective compliance regime to manage risks associated with gasfitting, installations, appliances and autogas. The bill also closes gaps in the regulatory framework and reduces the risk of safety problems. NSW Fair Trading will have the power to take appropriate action as risks associated with particular appliances or installations are identified. For example, I am sure many honourable members have encountered portable patio heaters, which are used more and more in cafes and bars—especially in winter—and more and more in people's homes as well. If not properly used and maintained, these heaters can present a risk to the public. This bill makes it possible for NSW Fair Trading, if required, to enhance its oversight of these heaters. It is important to simplify the process, particularly for consumers who may be elderly and living on their own. If they have to work through a maze, it can be difficult and confusing for them. This legislation contains good measures. The Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2010 will make life simpler and safer for consumers, tradespeople, producers of appliances and installations and suppliers of gas. I commend the bill to the House
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [5.40 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2010. Importantly, this bill redefines key terms in the Gas Supply Act 1996. In particular, the definitions of "gasfitting work" and "gas installation" have been refined. While gasfitting is work on gas installations and therefore is required to be performed by a licensed gasfitter, the definition of what constitutes an installation has been unclear. The bill, therefore, introduces a standard definition of "gas installation" and clarifies that it means any pipe or system of pipes used to convey or control gas, and any associated fittings and equipment that are downstream of the gas supply point, but does not include anything beyond the gas installation end point. "Gas supply point" and "gas installation end point" are also defined. The result is that the installation includes all the piping from the meter to the appliance, but does not include the appliance.
In the case of a gas installation to which gas is not supplied from a gas network—for example, gas supplied from a gas cylinder—the gas supply point is the control valve or other connection point of a gas container. The end point is the control valve or other connection point of a gas appliance or of another gas container. The bill also amends the definition of "gasfitting work". The definition of the term will now include 21558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
any work involved in the connection of a gas container, gas regulator or gas appliance to, or the disconnection of, a gas container, gas regulator or gas appliance from a gas installation, otherwise than where it is designed to be readily detachable from the installation whether by the use of a tool, mechanical force or otherwise.
This change to the definition is necessary as a result of a recent court case, Deborah Lynn Webber and Ors v West Lindfield Bowling Club Co-op, [2008] NSW DC 215. In deciding this case, the court interpreted the definition of "gasfitting work" to include any work on a pigtail if it requires the use of a spanner. I am told that a pigtail is a short length of small-bore pipe or a hose assembly used for the high-pressure connection between an LPG cylinder and the cylinder regulator or the cylinder manifold. I understand that when gas cylinder delivery companies supply a cylinder to a consumer, the pigtail is routinely disconnected and connected and also replaced if it is found to be worn or defective. Performing that work is apparently simple and therefore does not require advanced training of the kind undertaken by gasfitters.
Industry bodies have expressed concern that the court's interpretation is inconsistent with the Australian Standard AS5601, which implies that the pigtail is not part of the installation. The upshot is that this would require the delivery of gas cylinders and the detachment of a pigtail to be performed by a licensed gasfitter. It has been suggested that this work should not require a licensed gasfitter, noting that safety protection in this situation is already covered by occupational health and safety laws, which require the person performing such work to be competent. Requiring a licensed gasfitter to deliver cylinders would increase delivery costs to consumers. The alternative, which would be to require home owners to engage a licensed gasfitter to change a worn pigtail before a cylinder is connected, would impose unnecessary costs and inconvenience to consumers. In the absence of any evidence of a significant or systemic problem or risk that would require regulatory intervention, it should be the responsibility of home owners to ensure their installation is safe through periodic inspection by a licensed gasfitter.
The change to the definition of gasfitting work introduced in this bill should not affect the safety of consumers. As I mentioned, the disconnection, connection and replacement of pigtails by gas cylinder delivery companies is already covered by occupational health and safety laws, which require the person performing such work to be competent. The bill confirms that the connection or disconnection of gas containers, gas regulators or gas appliances from an installation is not gasfitting work if the installation is designed to be readily detachable, even if a tool, mechanical force or otherwise is used. The great thing about this bill is that it removes ambiguity. It makes life simpler and easier for anyone having contact with the gas industry. It will make it much clearer for network operators, gasfitters and companies that deliver and replace gas containers. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the important Gas Supply Amendment Bill 2010, which will consolidate regulatory authority for gasfitting, autogas mechanics, gas installations and gas appliances within Fair Trading NSW and will better define regulatory responsibilities between agencies. I will address some issues that were raised during debate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, raised concerns about the Government's recent amendments to the bill in the other place. The amendments are required to address some minor errors identified in the bill. Work on the "consumer service" is always done in accordance with the gas network operators' rules, and the Minister for Energy is the appropriate authority to regulate such activity. This amendment is required to ensure that the Minister for Energy retains the power to regulate this activity. The definition of "gasfitting work" has been amended to ensure that the Minister for Fair Trading has no role to play for work on, or related to, a "consumer service". The Government amendment does not in any way alter the standards or rules of work expected of any sector of the gasfitting or gas network industries.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked how the Office of Fair Trading would enforce the requirements under the proposed reforms. These comments were echoed by Dr John Kaye in his speech. Fair Trading NSW has considerable experience in compliance and enforcement functions. Fair Trading has a demonstrated ability to develop cost-effective compliance programs using industry and marketplace intelligence to target problem areas. This expertise will benefit Fair Trading when carrying out compliance and enforcement functions under the proposed reforms to gas regulation. Fair Trading will use its existing powers under the Home Building Act 1989 and the enforcement powers under the Gas Supply Act to carry out these functions.
Currently, Fair Trading uses a number of enforcement remedies, such as issuing penalty infringement notices and local court prosecutions. In more serious cases, proceedings may be commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. All these remedies can be easily applied to the gas industry. Consultation with industry stakeholders is already underway to identify activities that present the greatest risk to traders and 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21559
consumers. This consultation will inform development of a risk-based audit regime. Fair Trading NSW will also develop proactive, targeted compliance campaigns. In summing up, I reiterate that these reforms have been developed in consultation with a wide range of industry stakeholders and have the support of industry. These reforms will ensure clarity for those working in the gas industry and also for the agencies charged with regulating the industry. This clarity will cut red tape. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notice of Motion
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: According to Standing Order 71, I seek leave to give a notice of motion relating to the suspension of standing orders for the rescission of the resolution relating to the Water Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010.
Leave not granted.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.49 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
BARRABA WATER SUPPLY
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.49 p.m.]: During the past three sitting weeks I have identified the significant water issues that impact on the Tamworth electorate. The failure of the State Labor Government to continue with the augmentation of Chaffey Dam and the failure of the State Labor Government to provide adequate funds for the repair of Somerton Bridge are just two of the very important issues facing the Tamworth electorate. I now bring to the attention of the House the issue of Barraba and its desperate need for water. Again, this encompasses the recurring theme of the failure of the State Labor Government to provide funding for infrastructure in the Tamworth electorate.
Barraba is a town located in the northern part of the electorate with a population of approximately 1,200 people. The water supply for the town is usually taken from the Manilla River, the Barraba Creek and Connors Creek Dam but, due to the drought, the town has consistently had to rely on bore water—water that is not of a high quality. Only 400 kilolitres is allowed to be drawn down each day. That amount of water is barely enough to enable the town to survive, let alone to promote itself as a place for development, tourism or just a great place to live. Tamworth Regional Council and the people of Barraba all agree that the best supply of water would be provided by a 28-kilometre pipeline from Split Rock Dam. That dam, which was built in 1988, has a draw valve in the wall in preparation for a pipeline to Barraba. They had initiative back then, but not now. The annual water demand of Barraba would represent only 0.06 per cent of the dam's capacity. This amount would hardly affect the dam's available water but would, if pumped to Barraba, make a significant difference to that community.
In March 2004 the newly amalgamated Tamworth Regional Council, which included the town of Barraba, made an application to the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program fund. Investigations 21560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
were subsequently undertaken to establish all possible avenues for supplying water to the town. At the end of 2007 the Minister then responsible for water, Phil Koperberg, wrote to Tamworth Regional Council stating that he would examine a $10-million proposal for the pipeline to commence. Since that time there has been nothing from the State Labor Government but shirking away from the responsibility to provide a decent water supply.
The Government continued to push for extensive testing of bore water, when it has been proven time and time again that there is simply not sufficient to supply the town, that it has affected pressure from existing bores on surrounding properties and that the taste and quality of the water is below drinking standard. The cost has now reached $20 million. Tamworth Regional Council has pressed this issue with not only the State Government but also the Federal Government. The Tamworth Regional Council has allocated $10 million towards the cost of the pipeline in its forward estimates, but still there has been no commitment from the State Labor Government.
When Senator John Williams raised this issue federally during a budget estimates hearing it was stated that the $7 billion of Infrastructure Australia funding was already allocated. Barraba continues to miss out. Funding from the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program fund has failed and funding from Infrastructure Australia has failed. How long can the State Labor Government continue to ignore a town in New South Wales that is fast running out of water? The Barraba community continues to be affected by this situation. When I travelled recently to Barraba with the shadow Minister for Natural Resources, Katrina Hodgkinson, it reaffirmed my position that this issue is of vital importance and that the situation should not be allowed to continue.
Barraba will continue to be a viable town in the north-west and will thrive if there is a sufficient water supply, but at the moment that bright future is under threat. If the State Labor Government were committed to the New South Wales economy and if it were serious about ensuring that each and every person has access to clear, clean drinking water, the Barraba community would not have to wait any longer. It is time for the problem to be resolved. It is time for the State Labor Government to meet the commitment of the Tamworth Regional Council and to allocate appropriate funding.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr IAN COHEN [5.54 p.m.]: On 2 and 3 March representatives of 53 Australian coastal councils; coastal scientists, including the CSIRO's Dr John Church; regional development authorities; affordable housing providers; and coastal management stakeholders attended the fourth annual Australian Coastal Councils Conference in Byron Bay. The conference—which draws together councillors from all political backgrounds, representing approximately 4.95 million residents and Federal parliamentarians, including Jennie George, MP, and Dr Mal Washer, MP—is an opportunity to pool experiences in dealing with the daunting challenges faced by local government.
Many coastal councils, especially non-metropolitan councils, are currently sailing into a storm of unprecedented population growth, rapidly shifting demographics, housing affordability, infrastructure pressures, unemployment and climate change impacts. The conference focused on managing the potential social, environmental and economic fallout associated with coastal erosion and inundation heralded by anthropogenic climate change. The coastal conference was the first opportunity for key coastal stakeholders, including the National Sea Change Taskforce, to discuss and collectively evaluate the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, entitled "Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate: The Time to Act is Now". The inquiry, chaired by Jennie George, MP, and delivered with significant bipartisan support, has provided a frame-by-frame blueprint for national leadership, with State and local government collaboration an essential component.
In a communiqué to the Federal Government, the coastal conference urges the Rudd Government to adopt in the national interest all 47 recommendations in the inquiry report. The Australian community is seeking coastal governance and policy leadership, appropriate law reform, community participation in coastal management and dissemination of coastal information. This is an inquiry report that we simply cannot afford to ignore. If we allow the report to gather dust on the shelf we are condemning our coastline to a very uncertain future. Inquiries into this issue have been undertaken since the 1970s and we cannot afford for this report to become another lost opportunity.
Further stoking the fires of urgency to adopt the inquiry recommendations is the release of the "Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts" report. The report reveals that between 157,000 and 247,600 existing 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21561
residential buildings will be at risk from sea inundation by 2100 under a sea-level rise scenario of 1.1 metres. In New South Wales inundation analysis suggests that between 40,800 and 62,400 residential buildings in New South Wales areas may be at risk of inundation from sea-level rise and storm surges. Local government areas, including Lake Macquarie, Wyong, Gosford, Wollongong, Shoalhaven and Rockdale collectively contain more than 50 per cent of residential buildings at risk in New South Wales. The economic exposure and risk associated with building and infrastructure replacement costs for New South Wales is estimated to be between $12.4 billion and $18.7 billion. The magnitude of economic disaster resulting from sea-level rise demands considered planning and management by this current generation.
The New South Wales Liberal Party should be acknowledged as putting climate change in the 1990 Coastline Management Manual, and the New South Wales Labor Party's commitment to a sea-level rise statement last year deserves due recognition. However, in large part, local governments have been left to deal with implementing practices that secure the sustainability of their communities. While our mainstream media debate the existence of climate change and its causes, local councils are already battling at the coalface of climate change. The conference communiqué states:
For councils in coastal areas, for example, climate change is already a daily reality that requires them to make decisions that have significant implications in terms of risk management and future liability. They require guidance, clarity and consistency in making these decisions in order to ensure the future safety and sustainability of their communities.
The New South Wales Government should take the opportunity to support the George report and strengthen its commitment to precautionary planning. It must move ahead and play a more active role in developing policies that protect the ecological integrity of our coastlines. Governments at all levels need to embark upon extensive consultation and dialogue with communities to build the key principles of coastal stewardship into local management. The New South Wales Government must acknowledge the magnitude and scale of climate change adaptation required of coastal councils and communities. Its reach extends way beyond the boundaries of existing paradigms, and our treatment of coastal management as a sub-category of natural resource management will compromise our ability to sustainably manage our coastline.
One of the themes discussed by Professor Bruce Thom at the Coastal Conference was this idea of severing coastal planning from the natural resource management umbilical cord. This idea resonates with many coastal councils because it represents a shift to a more holistic and integrated approach of managing a natural asset so fundamentally core to our identity and our social, economic and environmental prosperity. In 2003 the Government abolished the New South Wales Coastal Council. The dismantled coastal council's role in providing policy advice on coastal planning issues, grounded in scientific data and sound research, was overtaken by the Natural Resources Advisory Council. The loss of the New South Wales Coastal Council has set New South Wales back in planning for coastal climate change adaptation. [Time expired.]
CHILEAN EARTHQUAKE
NEW OLYMPIC SPORTS
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.59 p.m.]: On 27 February this year an 8.8 magnitude earthquake occurred off the coast of the Maule region of Chile. The earthquake was felt in the capital, Santiago, and tremors were felt in many Argentinean cities such as Buenos Aires. Tremors were also felt as far north as the city of Ica in southern Peru. Seismologists estimate that the earthquake was so powerful that it may have shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds and moved the earth's axis by eight centimetres. It also moved the entire city of Concepción 3.04 metres to the west. This was the strongest earthquake to affect Chile since the 9.5 magnitude Valdivia earthquake that occurred in 1960—the most energetic earthquake ever measured. Some 30 minutes after the first shock, consecutive tsunamis hit coastal towns. Constitución suffered the worst damage. As members know, the coastal towns that were hit by the tsunamis suffered extensive damage to life and buildings.
A fundraising salsa event will be held on Saturday 10 April at the Sydney Town Hall to assist the people of Chile. The event is sponsored by the City of Sydney, Unions NSW and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. Australia's Latin dance community and a number of other people in the wider dance community are also supporting it. As members are aware, Australia has a large Chilean community. Many of its members lost family and their families have lost their homes in this disaster. It would be great if the people of New South Wales were to get behind the people of Chile and participate in this fundraising event.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the decision of the International Olympic Committee to recommend the inclusion of two of my favourite sports: rugby sevens at the 2016 Olympic Games and, in 21562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
particular, women's boxing in the 2012 London Olympics. As members are aware I have a particular interest in these two women's sports. I played in the first women's rugby union tournament formed in the Sydney metropolitan area after having spent 30 years standing on the sideline watching my brothers play. Since that early competition, women's rugby in New South Wales has gone from strength to strength. Initially the second-class citizen to the Queensland competition, New South Wales now fields three representative teams in the nine-team national championship representative competition, including a development squad. New South Wales is the only State to field more than one team.
The affectionately named Warringah Rats can be rightly proud of having one of only three Australian captains to raise a rugby world cup. Cheryl Soon lead the Australian women's rugby sevens side to bring home the first women's rugby seven's world cup. She stands alongside Nick Farr-Jones and John Eales as other Australian captains to do so. New South Wales was overwhelmingly represented in the squad and alongside the Captain Cheryl Soon was Nicole Beck, Bo De la Cruz, Alexandra Hargreaves, Amanda Judd, Tui Ormsby and Ruan Sims. The inclusion of women's rugby sevens is a tremendous boost for the sport and will ensure that women's rugby, like women's soccer before it, becomes one of the fastest-growing women's sports in New South Wales.
The inclusion of women's boxing in the 2012 Olympic Games is another significant step forward for fairness in the treatment of women's sport. Boxing was the only sport included in the summer Olympics that did not provide for a female competition. One of the first speeches I made in this Chamber was about the unfairness of the prohibition on women's boxing in New South Wales. In 1986, the Wran Government introduced the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act, which banned women's boxing. It was a singularly unprogressive piece of legislation from one of our greatest Premier's, and certainly one of our most progressive. New South Wales was the only State in Australia to ban women's boxing.
Women have been boxing since the nineteenth century; it was an exhibition sport in the 1904 Olympic Games. It is high time that it was reintroduced to the Olympic movement that has a commitment to meet a 50:50 representation of men and women. Just as men are free to make their own decisions about whether they want to box, so should women be allowed the freedom to make their own decisions. I still fail to comprehend why some people believe that people can sit around a table and give only certain people certain rights. In a progressive, twenty-first century society such as Australia's surely we have moved past the days when women are not treated as equal partners.
It is perhaps fortuitous that it was only recently that we were discussing the removal of the prohibition on women's boxing in this Chamber. It would have been a great tragedy for New South Wales to be so out of step with the rest of the world in terms of equity for female athletes. Therefore, it is with a great sense of satisfaction that I heard the news that women's boxing will be included in the Olympic Games. I hope that there is time for a New South Wales athlete to be our representative at the 2012 Olympics. I look forward to New South Wales making as significant a contribution to our Olympic rugby sevens team in 2018 as it has to our current world champions
FAIRFIELD COUNCIL LAND ACQUISITION
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [6.04 p.m.]: As the Liberal Party's representative in the south-west I like to read the local newspapers from across the region. From time to time they contain stories that illustrate the contempt the New South Wales Government has for the communities it is supposed to represent for the greater good. Every now and then an article raises eyebrows. Last week one appeared in the Fairfield Advance under the heading "Property owner offered an extra $430,000 in a property deal". The article quoted Fairfield Mayor Nick Lalich, who stated that commercial privacy prevented him from saying why a landowner who gave a political donation to the Australian Labor Party was offered an extra $430,000 in a property deal.
The property is at 61 Canley Vale Road and is required for the construction of the Canley Vale Link Road. The saga began about seven years ago and since then the mayor has participated in various debates and has voted on the applications. Coincidentally, the owner of 61 Canley Vale Road made a donation to the Labor Party at about the time of the local government elections in September 2008. Subsequent to the donation being made to the Labor Party, the mayor voted on the issue in a committee meeting on 14 October 2008 and again in a full council meeting on 21 October 2008. He neglected to declare that the owner of the land had made a donation to the Labor Party.
Members will recall that I have previously advised the House that the mayor and member for Cabramatta voted to approve an application of another Labor Party donor without making a proper declaration. Since I raised this issue in the House he has seen fit to declare a donation from the owner of 61 Canley Vale Road and ceased taking part in any discussions on the issue. 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21563
We know the community wants and needs the Canley Vale Link Road. We know the mayor and the owner of 61 Canley Vale Road wanted and supported the Canley Vale Link Road. We now know that the owner of 61 Canley Vale Road made political donations to the mayor at about the time of the local government elections in September 2008 because the information was published in his declaration. Members should be concerned at the revelations in last week's Fairfield Advance because they reflect the modus operandi of developers who want to do business in Fairfield. It seems that every time the mayor and local member for Cabramatta gets himself into trouble there are a few recurring themes relating to money, property, donations, and the Australian Labor Party.
In this instance, Fairfield City Council was not only offering a straightforward payment in exchange for the property in question, it was also offering to reclassify and rezone part of the Adams Park Reserve, which is directly next to 61 Canley Vale Road. I am not a property developer, but that sounds like a pretty good deal. The council probably would have taken into consideration only the current value of the Adams Park Reserve, which was to be rezoned, and not its potential value once it was rezoned, which would allow the owner to build a multi-unit development perhaps with shops at the bottom facing the newly constructed road. We are talking about a potential multi-million dollar windfall.
Fortunately the previous Minister for Planning and current Premier, on advice from the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission, rejected the request by Fairfield City Council to reclassify and rezone part of the Adams Reserve, saying that the area did not have enough open space. Now that the land swap is no longer on the table, the owner of 61 Canley Vale Road is no longer interested in selling his property to the council or in the construction of Canley Vale Link Road. I note that a committee report publicly available on the council's website states that it should also be noted that the issue of whether council should make further representations to the Minister to ask him to reconsider the reclassification should be discussed. It was noted at the meeting that there is a new Minister and that he might be approached to review the matter.
Today I asked the current Minister for Planning whether the Mayor of Fairfield and State member for Cabramatta made any representations on behalf of the owner of 61 Canley Vale Road to reclassify part of Adams Reserve and to allow a land swap despite a council resolution to compulsorily acquire the land. Fortunately, he answered that no representation has been made. This is in direct contrast to what happened with a property at 255 Cabramatta Road, which was compulsorily acquired within weeks from a hardworking, family-run business. Unfortunately for them they had not donated to the ALP and the mayor is refusing to meet with them to discuss their concerns. You do not have to sit around a table of knowledge in Fairfield to appreciate there is only one way to do business in this area.
RIVER RED GUM LOGGING INDUSTRY
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.09 p.m.]: Sometimes we in this Chamber do not get to see the impact of decisions made by government and by members of this House. So it was a sobering experience yesterday to sit with representatives of the small communities affected by the River Red Gums lockup decision and to hear their stories. The representatives attended a crossbench briefing to put their case for a reversal of the Government's decision to lock up more than 100,000 hectares of Riverina forests, a decision made in the mistaken belief that it was in the interests of conservation. That is a joke, but it is a sick joke. The saddest part is that these folk genuinely believed the proposal could be voted down in the upper House and that the decision was not a final one.
When legislation reflecting that Government decision passes through the lower House and this House, communities in that area will be decimated. The four people who came to talk to the crossbenchers spoke of entire small towns disappearing: the shutdown of the logging industry will leave them with nothing and nowhere to go. It is not often that grown men who have worked in a tough industry like the logging industry are crying— but that is what happened. These are proud, hardworking people from small communities. They feel helpless, they feel abandoned and, worst of all, they do not understand why they are being treated in this way. They know that they are best placed to protect these forests—not some city-based, placard-carrying, so-called greenie. They do not understand the workings of politics, which seems to be about getting power and running the world from Sydney, and nothing else matters. Indeed, they do not really want to understand and nor should they need to understand. They simply want to get on with their work and their life in their small towns.
As one person put it, they now find they are "Road kill on the way to the State election". I find that expression of sheer abandonment to be anathema to the Australian way of life as we have known it, and I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed because these communities will suffer. They need help and they need it quickly. 21564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 March 2010
They cannot eat dates off a calendar. They need financial support and in far greater quantities than the pittance offered by the Government—probably to the tune of an additional $30 million. They need hope: hope that their communities will not disappear, hope they will not have to move away, family by family, to try to find work elsewhere and start all over again. One of the men, a 47-year-old indigenous worker, said to us, "What am I going to do? Where am I going to go? The rice mill is closed; the abattoir is closed. What am I going to do?" Governments are supposed to look after the communities they govern.
I implore the Premier not to ignore these people. I appeal to the Government to offer them more than empty platitudes. I appeal to the Government to assist them to transition from their current way of life and work—even though they do not want to—to achieve whatever they can for themselves in the future. Hearing these people speak was not a comfortable experience. It was less so because as an individual in this place I could really do nothing to help them except to appeal to the Government. If that is all I can do, I will do my best. I hope the Government hears what I have said. People in these communities deserve better treatment. There must come a time when blind ideology takes a back seat to the real functioning of the world. Even the most rabid greenie would have to feel sorry for the delegation we met. If these rabid city-based greenies cannot feel sorrow and guilt over this type of decision—which they drove right behind the Government—that is an indictment on their humanity.
PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY HOUSING
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.14 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the improvement and expansion of public and community housing as part of Labor's commitment at both a State and Federal level to provide housing and to tackle homelessness. Access to secure housing is a fundamental human need. How we house the most vulnerable in our community is a fundamental measure of how we as a government and as a society should judge our success. As members of Parliament, all of us have experience with people coming to seek our help to find somewhere safe to live: Women and children escaping domestic violence, men who have lost their jobs and found themselves on the street, young people thrown out or escaping abuse at home, people with disabilities, people with drug and/or alcohol problems, people with mental illness, and people who cannot afford to house themselves without help. While we sometimes are able to assist, we all know that demand for public housing continues to outstrip supply.
Housing NSW manages more than 140,000 properties across New South Wales. It provides housing for hundreds of thousands of people across the State. It does a terrific job that is not applauded often enough. Until recently it had done this job under very trying circumstances, as funding for new housing has been very tight. During the Federal Coalition's time in office more than $1 billion was cut from the social housing budget. As a result of this inaction thousands of people, the most vulnerable in our community, were added to the public housing waiting list. Thousands had to struggle in and out of marginal housing because of funding cuts served up by the Coalition—a Coalition now headed up by Tony Abbott, a man who has suggested that homelessness is a lifestyle choice, a man who is unwilling to sign up to a bipartisan approach to homelessness that sets a national target to halve homelessness by 2020.
Contrast this with the approach taken by the Rudd Government. I acknowledge also the hard work done by the Federal member for Sydney and Federal housing Minister, Tanya Plibersek. With new funding and a very successful partnership between the State and Federal Labor governments, there is action to expand housing for those who need it most. The Rudd Government's stimulus package is investing not only in jobs but also in social infrastructure in schools and in housing—infrastructure, I note, that those in the Coalition opposed. The housing part of the stimulus package has been underreported. The $2-billion investment from the Federal Government is building 6,000 new homes in New South Wales. In addition to this, the New South Wales Government is investing $1 billion of our own money to build an additional 3,000 homes—9,000 new homes for the most vulnerable men, women and children in this State. These 9,000 new homes will provide safe housing for 17,000 additional people.
The staff at Housing NSW should be congratulated on these new houses. New South Wales is ahead of the other States in delivering these homes. Construction of the 4,000th property has begun. In 2009, 228 homes were completed under stage one of the plan, with at least 630 more homes to be completed by June this year. Stage two involves an Australian Government tender for new construction, including the spot purchase of house and land packages for use in social housing. This stage will deliver around 5,442 homes across 376 projects and 75 per cent of the homes to be completed under the program will be finished by September this year.
Of course, providing housing is not the only answer to tackling the broader issues of homelessness. It is a sad reality that between 2001 and 2006 the number of homeless people in this State stayed the same. Despite 17 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21565
all the very valiant efforts of the State Government and the non-government sector, in particular the non-government organisations funded under the Supported Accommodation and Assistance Program, 27,000 women and children each year found themselves homeless.
The New South Wales Homelessness Action Plan tackles these issues. Our plan focuses on prevention, responding to early homelessness and breaking the cycle of entrenched homelessness. The Homelessness Action Plan will assist with the assessment and referral of 60,000 people specifically into intense support and housing models. More than 20,000 people will be provided with financial counselling. We expect that 800 rough sleepers will be supported to get off the street and 700 people in coastal areas at risk of becoming homeless will be helped to stay in their homes. Issues on the coast and in the country are too often ignored. In addition, 190 young people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness will receive outreach and housing support, and 700 people exiting prison will also get assistance so that they do not exit into homelessness. More than 300 women and children escaping domestic violence will have access to long-term housing and support. Under the stimulus packages around 2,500 houses are being targeted directly at homeless people.
The task is huge but it is important to put on record the commitment and hard work of so many who are working tirelessly to provide safe and secure homes for all in our community. I am pleased to be able to raise this in the House tonight. I thank in particular the hardworking staff at Housing NSW, who are ahead of the game and who are making a real difference to people's lives.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m. until Thursday 18 March 2010 at 11.00 a.m.
______