ADJOURNMENT ...... 23521 AGEING AND DISABILITY SERVICES ...... 23499 AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE FUNDING ...... 23498 ALCOHOL-RELATED VIOLENCE ...... 23525 ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 23484 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 23485, 23485 COAL SEAM GAS ...... 23503 EPPING TO THORNLEIGH THIRD TRACK PROJECT ...... 23505 FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTS ...... 23508 FEDERAL ELECTION 2013 ...... 23521 FERAL PIG CULLS ...... 23501 FIELD AND GAME AUSTRALIA ...... 23523 GUN CRIME ...... 23499 HEAVY VEHICLE (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL 2013 ...... 23484, 23491 HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES ...... 23501 HUNTER INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT FUND ...... 23505 ILLAWARRA-SHOALHAVEN AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE SERVICES ...... 23502 INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ...... 23484 LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE ...... 23485 LIVING LIFE MY WAY AMBASSADORS AND CHAMPIONS PROGRAM ...... 23507 MINISTER FOR ROADS AND PORTS OFFICIAL TRAVEL EXPENSES ...... 23503, 23508 MULTICULTURAL MEDIA AWARDS ...... 23524 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FIREFIGHTING REMUNERATION ...... 23500 NSW AGEING STRATEGY ...... 23504 NSW POLICE FORCE MOTORCYCLE RESPONSE TEAM ...... 23500 NURSE TO PATIENT RATIOS ...... 23522 PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER ...... 23484 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 23498 SCULPTURE SYMPOSIUM TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY ...... 23484 STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES ...... 23513 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT ...... 23509 V8 SUPERCARS CONTRACT ...... 23507 WITNESS PROTECTION UNIT RELOCATION ...... 23506 YARALLA ESTATE ...... 23485
23484
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 17 September 2013
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.
The President read the Prayers.
The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Crimes Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2013 Royal Commissions and Ombudsman Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
HEAVY VEHICLE (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL 2013
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay 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.
PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the terms of the agreement made with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, the annual report of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser for the year ended 30 June 2013.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the annual report of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for the year ended 30 June 2013 authorised to be made public this day.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
SCULPTURE SYMPOSIUM TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Motion by the Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES agreed to:
That this House notes that:
(1) The twentieth anniversary of the Sculpture Symposium was held on Saturday 18 May 2013 at the Living Desert Picnic Area.
17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23485
(2) The Sculpture Symposium was created by Lawrence Beck and 12 international sculptors from Georgia, Syria, Mexico, Bathurst Island and elsewhere in Australia.
(3) All sculptures are sandstone masterpieces up to 14 feet high, each weighing up to eight tons and visible for more than 100 kilometres.
(4) The blocks were built using 52 tonnes of Wilcannia sandstone discovered in the desert and transported approximately 250 kilometres and handcrafted over four months using local miners' old tungsten carbide chisels.
(5) The sculptures are situated on a hilltop 12 kilometres north of Broken Hill in the Living Desert Area.
(6) The Sculpture Symposium was opened on 23 May 1993 and dedicated to the late Professor Fred Hollows.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business items Nos 1466, 1467, 1468, 1477 and 1479 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
YARALLA ESTATE
Production of Documents: Further Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House of Thursday 29 August 2013, documents relating to a further order for papers regarding Yaralla Estate received on Thursday 12 September 2013 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.
Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House of Thursday 29 August 2013, a return identifying documents received on Thursday 12 September 2013 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, the Clerk advised that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps tabled the report entitled, "Legislation Review Digest No. 44/55", dated 17 September 2013.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Dr JOHN KAYE [2.49 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. 1479 outside the Order of Precedence relating to comments of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps be called on forthwith.
This motion is urgent enough to suspend standing orders because it is urgent that this House address and redress the hurt that has been caused by the remarks made by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps on 11 September 2013 in respect of the coup in Chile. The remarks of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps reopened old wounds; wounds that were dug deep and wounds that still live to this day. As an office holder in the O'Farrell Government, his words describing the dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, as a "morally courageous man who not only saved—"
Mr Scot MacDonald: Point of order: The member is debating the substance of the motion, rather than its urgency. 23486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I was explaining why those words make this motion particularly urgent.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, that is the debate, John.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Further to the point of order: It is not the debate—
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I ask Dr John Kaye to address the matter of urgency, and urgency alone.
Dr JOHN KAYE: This matter is urgent because of the massive hurt caused in the community by the words of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, describing Augusto Pinochet as:
A morally courageous man who not only saved his country from communism, but also whose adoption of the Chicago school of economics brought prosperity to his country.
I have in my possession emails and letters from numerous members of the Chilean community who suffered at the hands of Pinochet's torturers.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The issue is whether this matter is urgent.
Dr JOHN KAYE: You are just trying to silence me.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, I am not. I am asking the member to explain why this matter is urgent.
Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I am explaining why this matter is urgent. I am explaining precisely why it is urgent.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: This is a separate point of order.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Further to the point of order: I will finish this point of order first and then the member opposite can use up all my time if he likes. The member does not want to hear the awful truth of what the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has done and the damage his comments have caused.
The Hon. Robert Brown: To the point of order: It appears to me that the member is flouting your previous ruling.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I will deal with the first point of order. I ask Dr Kaye to address the matter of urgency and urgency alone. If he does not, I will ask him to resume his seat.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I am addressing urgency, as you request. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps reopened wounds, and those wounds need to be closed. It is urgent that this House close those wounds. Since the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps made his remarks, the urgency of this motion has been demonstrated by the fact that the centre that was opened to deal with the influx of Chilean refugees from the Pinochet regime and to deal with the emotional and physical scars of torture has started to take back people from Chilean origin who heard the words of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps because his words reopened old wounds. It demonstrates clearly the urgency of this motion because those people can no longer trust their new country. The urgency of this motion derives from the fact that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, as an office holder of the O'Farrell Government, has dragged the O'Farrell Government into his words, reopened those wounds and recreated memories in those people that they would prefer to forget: memories of terrible times, of unspeakable torture, of seeing loved ones disappear and of seeing their friends and their colleagues—
The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: Point of order: Again, the member is debating the substance of the motion. Simply inserting the words "urgent" and "urgency" does not qualify as establishing the urgency of the matter.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I ask Dr Kaye to address the matter of urgency and urgency alone. Again I make the point that if he continues to move beyond establishing urgency to debating the substance of the motion I will ask him to sit down. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23487
Dr JOHN KAYE: You have effectively done that. Thank you, Mr Deputy-President, I appreciate your words. The urgency of the motion comes from the fact that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is an office holder in the O'Farrell Government.
The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order—
Dr JOHN KAYE: Well done, John.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! When a point of order is taken Dr Kaye will resume his seat. He will not comment on it.
The Hon. John Ajaka: I have sat patiently, but Dr Kaye continues to flout your earlier rulings. Clearly, the insertion of the word "urgent" does not make the matter urgent. Dr Kaye is required to demonstrate why this matter is more urgent than any other matter on the Notice Paper for today and why this matter could not be dealt with in Private Members' Business on Thursday. He has not done that.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The member's time has expired.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [2.54 p.m.]: This matter is clearly urgent because no democratic chamber—particularly this democratic Chamber, which is the oldest democratic Chamber in Australia—should allow the words that I am about to read to remain on the record without a response. These are the words of the Government Whip:
Yes, Pinochet killed people. If anyone knows of any other way to overthrow a government than by military force, then let me hear about it.
That comment requires a formal response from this Chamber. It should not be left without condemnation— unanimous condemnation—for one day. Government members appear not to want to stand up and make comment on the outrageous statements made by the Government Whip—
The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: Clearly, the member's contribution does not go to urgency at all. The member opposite is debating the substantive motion.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: To the point of order: The fact of the offence of the statement not being met and not being responded to is clearly what the urgency is about. This is urgent because the statements have been made and have been left without response by the Chamber and by a majority of members in this Chamber. That is the urgency of the matter and that is the point I was trying to get across.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: To the point of order: Clearly, the member is labouring under a misconception. The question about urgency is in relation to why this matter is more urgent than other matters on the Notice Paper, not in relation to the substantive issue that he continues to refer to throughout his contribution. I ask you to bring him to order in this respect.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! Mr David Shoebridge must show why this matter is more urgent than other matters on the Notice Paper. I invite him to address that issue, rather than continue with the more generalised approach that he is taking.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Nothing could be more urgent, whether it is a discussion about uniform heavy vehicle laws or a further library amendments bill that the Government wants to progress today. Nothing can be more urgent than this House standing up—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The member is misleading the House. There is no library bill on the list of business for the House. He is trifling with the House.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I uphold the point of order.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: What could be more urgent than standing up and affirming this Chamber's belief in human rights; this Chamber's condemnation of a senior Government member who seeks to excuse a dictator's killing of people, a dictator's flouting of law.
The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: Once again the member is dealing with the substantive. Clearly, that has nothing to do with establishing urgency whatsoever. He is flouting your ruling. 23488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I will allow Mr Shoebridge to continue at this stage. He is obviously aware of the fact that we are dealing with a matter of urgency.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I believe this House should discuss the Entertainment Industry Bill 2013 in due course. But this matter, of condemning the words of a member who seeks to excuse the murderous activities of a South American dictator, ought to, indeed must, take precedence over a discussion on the Entertainment Industry Bill 2013 which is on the Notice Paper for today. I believe in due course this House should discuss the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment Bill. It is a matter of urgency. However, the Government will not bring on that debate; it will bring on discussion about heavy vehicle regulation.
Discussing and condemning the words of a member of this Chamber, particularly an office holder, who sought to excuse a dictator's murderous regime for the political ends of that murderous regime, surely is a matter of substantial urgency. We have the privilege of living in a democracy where we can stand up to dictators and support human rights. If we allow the member's words to be unmet by a formal resolution of this House—the words of my colleague Dr John Kaye's motion are very moderate, given the offence that the language the Government Whip has caused particularly with the Chilean expatriate community— [Time expired.]
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.00 p.m.]: The Opposition will support this motion: It is justified as a matter of urgency given the statements of the Government Whip. We believe this motion is more urgent than any other matter on the Notice Paper. This side of the House understands that when people have suffered and want to heal, the best way to do that is to acknowledge their suffering. There are parents whose children have disappeared and Australians whose partners will never be seen again. It is not through making statements that amuse a member on the other side of the Chamber about someone whose actions included throwing pregnant women out of helicopters into the open sea. For that reason this side of the Chamber believes the motion is urgent.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [3.01 p.m.]: This matter is urgent because around 45,000 Chileans call New South Wales home. They have been hurt deeply by the callous remarks of the Hon. Peter Phelps last week, including calling a barbaric dictator a hero and a courageous man. This House has to urgently reassure our community that as strong supporters of democracy and human rights we condemn military dictatorships and all violations of human rights. Today there is nothing more urgent on notice than this motion. I speak from experience, having grown up in a country where more than 35 of its 66 years of independence have been marred by such dictatorships that have overthrown democratic governments and systematically undermined democracy. The motion is urgent because every military coup—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: As reluctant as I am to interrupt, the member has moved into the substance of the debate and well away from urgency.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay is correct. I ask Dr Mehreen Faruqi to address the issue of urgency only. I note Dr John Kaye shakes his head, but he knows that there is wide precedent on these issues and that only the urgency of the matter should be addressed.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: I shall conclude by saying that this matter is urgent because we all are here standing up for democracy and democratic rights. Dictatorships, such as the one in Chile, have destroyed democratic rights and favoured the rich, the bureaucracy and religious fundamentalism at the expense of citizens. We need to stand up for this if we truly believe in democracy and in other countries having similar rights. That is the urgency of this motion.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD [3.03 p.m.]: A case for urgency has not been made in any contribution. It is a well-established practice for adjournment speeches to be more characteristic of an individual's view. The Government Whip certainly was not speaking for the Government and never pretended to be. It was quite a nuance-complex argument. Adjournment speeches and notices of motion provide ample opportunity for these kinds of issues. I believe no case for urgency has been made.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.04 p.m.]: Let us be honest about this: The Greens have been carrying on this stunt since last week. Obviously, The Greens clearly do not support the statements of the member, but they made that clear in the media.
Dr John Kaye: So you do? 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23489
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: It is not a question. The point I am making is that this is a stunt in this place. The Greens of all people argue that this is about democracy while on the other side of this building a democratically elected Government—overwhelmingly elected by the people of New South Wales—cannot govern this State because in this Chamber right now there are deals and efforts being made to stymie, sabotage and undermine the right of the Government to govern. The Greens stand here and lecture us about democracy. We are struggling, as they know, with legislation because of the behaviour and performance of this House. This Chamber is being brought into disrepute because it will not respect and recognise the right of an elected Government to govern. Do not sit there looking so puzzled. You are the ones having all the meetings, you are the ones organising the sabotage behind the scenes and coming here in an opportunistic way—
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: I listened with great interest to the member's contribution, but she pointed at me and said, "You're the one organising the meetings." If the member wants to make an assertion that I am trying to subvert democracy, she should do so. But she should return to the matter here: whether or not it is urgent to debate the issue of Dr Phelps' support for torture.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: This motion does subvert democracy. The Greens may want to belittle bills, such as the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill, but I live on the North Coast and have to deal with the Pacific Highway problems and bloodshed and know that the bill will improve road safety and the economy of this State. It is an absolute mockery of democracy for Dr John Kaye to say that is not important and we need to put all of that legislation aside so that we can deal with his point-scoring stunt to embarrass the Government. The member is using this Chamber for his political point-scoring. He has had his fun in the media; now he should stand aside and let this Government get on with the job of running the State. But no, the member wants to hold up this House yet again with the support of the Labor Party for the sake of political point-scoring. Spare me the piousness that this is being done in the name of democracy. The member's actions are the absolute opposite of democracy because they are denying the elected Government of this State its mandate and the opportunity to make decisions to implement the policies that the people of New South Wales require.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.07 p.m.]: I was not going to speak on the urgency of this matter until I heard the contribution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I believe the argument that we have more important legislation today is not true. Today's Notice Paper lists the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 followed by the budget estimates take-note debate. In effect, the Government has one bill for us to deal with today.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Why is that Amanda?
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The reason is that those opposite cannot manage the legislative program.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Because you are blocking our legislation. That is why. How hypocritical are you?
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Catherine Cusack that somehow we are blocking legislation. We can only deal with legislation that comes to us from the Legislative Assembly. It has sent us only one bill to deal with today. The argument has no basis. Quite simply, the urgency of this issue is one of re-establishing community trust with the elected representatives who sit in the Legislative Council. Statements have been made that have caused, and continue to cause, considerable community concern. I believe it is urgent to put these issues to rest. We can do that and still have time before question time to deal with the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 unless, of course, every person on the backbench who is desperate to become a Parliamentary Secretary has been given a prepared speech by the Minister's office.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [3.09 p.m.]: I support the motion for urgency by my colleague Dr John Kaye.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham will resume his seat until members come to order. 23490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: This matter is urgent because the comments by the Hon. Peter Phelps were obnoxious. They were hurtful to many people in the New South Wales community, principally the Chilean community. The reason this issue has received media attention is because so many people in New South Wales found the comments to be obnoxious. The hurtful comments were said recently and the matter should be dealt with now by way of Dr Kaye's motion. We should not allow a member of this House to open a wound that causes angst and hurt in the community and then let it bleed.
We should act immediately to staunch that wound and that is why this motion is urgent. While the legislation before the House is important, it is not as important as sending a strong statement to the Chilean community and the people of New South Wales that we think the comments from the Hon. Peter Phelps that justify genocide, the murder of civilians and the overthrow of a democratically elected government because it did not fit a particular ideology are obnoxious and should be condemned.
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Point of order: Honourable members have listened to these spurious arguments for urgency. The fact is that if a member feels slighted, there are plenty of opportunities in the adjournment allocation—
The Hon. Helen Westwood: What's the point of order?
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: The point of order is that there is no urgency. If the member feels slighted, he can be allocated a spot in the adjournment debate. Indeed, the Hon. Jan Barham has an adjournment debate allocation so indicate urgency then.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: My point of order is that by contributing to the debate in the manner in which he has, the member is casting aspersions on the good character of the Hon. Peter Phelps. It is not about urgency. He is simply casting aspersions on the good character of a member of this House and he should be brought to account.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I ask the member to return to the question of urgency.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The matter is urgent. I believe it is incumbent on this House to vote on the motion of Dr Kaye. I am sure that Dr Kaye will give a speech during the adjournment debate in due course but it is urgent that this House votes on the motion to send a message to the community. That is the democratic process. Members will have an opportunity to support Dr Kaye's excellent motion to condemn the obnoxious comments of the Hon. Peter Phelps. That is what the people of New South Wales demand. The reason there is interest is because people are aggrieved, and rightly so. It is urgent that we deal with the matter and vote on it today to send a message to those good people in the Chilean community of New South Wales and further afield who found the comments of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps inappropriate and completely out of place in a modern democracy.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 18
Ms Barham Mr Primrose Mr Whan Mr Buckingham Mr Searle Mr Wong Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Dr Faruqi Ms Sharpe Mr Foley Mr Shoebridge Tellers, Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Ms Fazio Mr Moselmane Ms Westwood Ms Voltz 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23491
Noes, 21
Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Borsak Mr Green Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps
Pair
Ms Cotsis Mrs Mitchell
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
HEAVY VEHICLE (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL 2013
Second Reading
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.21 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill affirms the New South Wales Government's commitment to working with our State and Territory colleagues to cut red tape and reduce the regulatory burden on the heavy vehicle industry. The introduction of the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 will allow the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to begin applying a more consistent set of rules for heavy vehicle drivers operating across participating State and Territory borders. In short, once commenced in New South Wales and all other participating jurisdictions, this bill will streamline safety and access regulation for heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes.
Some commentary since the introduction of this bill late last month has focused on the New South Wales variations to the Heavy Vehicle National Law. I will come to that in a moment and will explain that they are minimal and necessary to take into account the unique status of New South Wales as the "through State" and to ensure that safety standards are not compromised. Overall though, and in the vast majority of situations, this bill cements the commitment of New South Wales to national reform. This reform is a prime example of how we can work together to reduce the inconsistencies between States and Territories and better focus the energy of industries on improving safety and productivity.
The use of national systems and processes, which emerge from the national regulator's one-stop shop, will offer heavy vehicle operators, governments and the community better coordination of access decisions across all levels of government, especially "last mile" access decisions; improved compliance and enforcement strategies, which encourage industry participation in accreditation schemes in return for mass, dimension and load productivity benefits; information technology applications that will improve operator efficiencies such as better online fleet management capability; reductions in the time needed to train drivers given that there will be one nationally consistent set of rules; and the same outcome in the same circumstances across all jurisdictions given the common policies, procedures and processes that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will introduce. All of this should lead to a reduction in regulatory inconsistencies that currently plague operators and sufficiently add to the costs of doing business.
In terms of access applications, the national regulator will work on behalf of operators with cross-border businesses and local governments to ensure a single permit with a straightforward set of operating conditions to cover each applicable jurisdiction. This system will allow access permit applications to be sent simultaneously to decision-makers in councils and State road authorities facilitating the assessment tasks of road authorities and reducing the burden of operators which, under current arrangement, must contact road authorities themselves. The national regulator will introduce case managers to coordinate access applications across councils and State road authorities. The national regulator will also introduce, for the first time, centralised data on access applications, which will provide intelligence on infrastructure bottlenecks. 23492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
It is important to note that of the 185,000 kilometres of roads in New South Wales, 165,000 are owned and managed by local councils. The State Government owns and manages approximately 20,000 major roads such as key highways and motorways. The national regulator has a big job ahead in coordinating industry access applications across councils, but rest assured the New South Wales Government will assist in this process. Finally, the Heavy Vehicle National Law provides for ministerial guidelines that the national regulator will publish to assist road managers in applying consistent processes and criteria while assessing access applications and determining appropriate access to the road network. For the broader community, it will mean also that a single national regulatory body will be in place to undertake coordinated compliance and enforcement activities to encourage safe practice within the heavy vehicle industry.
Previously, management of compliance and enforcement has been handled by individual jurisdictions. This can result in inconsistent outcomes for the road freight industry, as well as lost opportunities for collaboration between jurisdictional road transport agencies and police forces. Roads and Maritime Services-employed vehicle inspectors will continue to work with the NSW Police Force and the national regulator to undertake on-road enforcement of heavy vehicles under service agreements. Nationally consistent training, as well as on-road policy and procedure manuals, will allow New South Wales inspectors to adhere to consistent enforcement policies. It is also expected that oversight of compliance and enforcement by the national regulator will allow for the establishment of a national investigation and prosecution framework. This should deliver a more consistent approach and level of compliance and enforcement.
Under this bill the national regulator will oversee and monitor a new national database containing non-compliance data from jurisdiction audits and on-road intercepts across the country. This will allow a level of national regulatory understanding that has not previously been possible under the current system of State-based heavy vehicle regulation. Such oversights increase risk to drivers and the community, as well as providing a competitive disadvantage to the vast majority of transport operators who do their best to keep our roads safe for everyone. There is much to look forward to in terms of improved consistency and cross-border cooperation. However, the New South Wales Government has been working with the national regulator and the heavy vehicle industry to ensure that key productivity and safety initiatives currently in place will be retained in New South Wales following the passage of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
A key example is the retention in New South Wales of the speed limiter deeming provisions. Under New South Wales provisions, it is considered prima facie evidence that the vehicle was not speed limiter compliant if the vehicle was being driven at or above 115 kilometres per hour—that is self-evident. The New South Wales provision is directed at holding operators responsible for non-compliant speed limiters as these are the people best placed to influence the culture of the company and the conduct of its employees. Two weekends ago, three Victorian registered B-double trucks were caught doing speeds in excess of 120 kilometres per hour on the Newell Highway in Central West New South Wales. All were carrying fresh produce southbound on the heavily used Brisbane to Melbourne and Victoria freight route. With speeding still such an issue, it is understandable why the New South Wales bill has slightly different provisions to the national law. Let us not forget that New South Wales is the "through State" for the eastern seaboard of Australia.
While we are always looking for ways to increase flexibility and productivity, we are ever watchful also of needing to balance the safety risks for those who travel on roads such as the Newell Highway. I know the Hon. Mick Veitch and I are not alone in having children and grandchildren who travel on that road. Managing fatigue effectively is of central importance to the heavy vehicle industry and to all other road users. New South Wales communities and roads experience interstate truck traffic like no other jurisdiction in the country by carrying 60 per cent of national road freight. This presents some challenging road safety and infrastructure issues for New South Wales. The amendment to the bill which was agreed to by the Legislative Assembly last week makes how New South Wales deals with the transition from the current Advanced Fatigue Management [AFM] to the new Risk Classification Scheme more closely aligned with the national law. But at the same time it recognises that New South Wales—due to its geographic location as a "through State"—has a different and higher risk of fatigue when compared to other States where heavy vehicle journeys start.
The amendment means that New South Wales law will no longer explicitly mention any outer limit hours; instead the New South Wales Minister will be able to apply conditions, if considered necessary, to an Advanced Fatigue Management accreditation approved by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. In practice it is anticipated that on a day-to-day basis the regulator will work very closely with New South Wales officials to assess Advanced Fatigue Management applications as they are submitted. It is expected that the New South Wales Minister would exercise his or her ability to apply additional conditions only in those circumstances when an accreditation approved by the national regulator is considered to be inappropriate or unsafe. I am not 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23493
expecting to have much work at all in this area—I am certainly hoping I do not. Roads and Maritime Services [RMS] heavy vehicle inspectors and the NSW Police Force have been working on joint enforcement and compliance operations for years; whereas the national regulator was established only this year.
Put simply, our people have a great deal of knowledge and experience in heavy vehicle enforcement and compliance—they have seen and heard it all—and hence have insights that others do not necessarily have yet; but will get. It would be irresponsible for me as the New South Wales Minister for Roads and Ports not to heed the expert in-field advice and operational experience of New South Wales vehicle inspectors and police. New South Wales wants to be at the forefront of trialling this new approach and is looking forward to working closely with the national regulator and industry to finalise the best, the most flexible and the safest scheme possible. The onus is now on the national regulator to come forward and advise how the Risk Classification Scheme will operate in practice.
Once the evaluation of the new approach is complete in the next couple of years, and it has been demonstrated that it effectively manages fatigue, New South Wales will consider removing the ability of the New South Wales Minister to apply conditions. I would certainly be eager to do that. At that time this interim approach, which is providing New South Wales with some added assurance, given the increased fatigue risk exposure of New South Wales, may no longer be required. It is also noted that there has been much industry commentary that New South Wales is seeking to keep an independent power to prosecute. This view is based on a misinterpretation of the intent of the clause.
The actual intent of the provision is to ensure that any proceedings are based on solid legal ground. Unless there is clear reference as to who can commence proceedings, relying solely on delegation instruments, which could have multiple layers and levels, is inherently riskier. Put simply, defendants may be more tempted to argue the soundness of the action rather than the facts of the case. This provision is therefore intended ultimately to assist the national regulator and not to diminish his or her ability to ensure consistent regulatory activity through services agreements with each participating State and Territory. Given that the New South Wales provision is modelled exactly on one found in the Victorian application law and to assist in sorting out a national position, I have undertaken to raise the issue at the forthcoming national transport Ministers council meeting known as the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure [SCOTI]. Since March 2011 the New South Wales Government has implemented many reforms to benefit the heavy vehicle industry.
One of these reforms includes delivering an extra 1,739 kilometres of roads in New South Wales for higher mass limits [HML] access since April 2011, with about 25 per cent of these being regional or local roads managed by councils. More than 21,270 kilometres of State, regional and local roads are now open to higher mass limits access. Other reforms include abolishing the requirement for transport operators to carry half a dozen truck notices; allowing performance-based standards [PBS] quad and quin dog trucks to operate on the approved B-double network in New South Wales; delivering modern road train access on select routes east of the Newell Highway; and delivering baled agricultural commodities with load width exemptions for wool, hay, straw and cotton.
Other reforms have included: allowing modular B-triples to operate in New South Wales, under a nationally agreed framework, on approved road train routes west of the Newell Highway; abolishing the requirement for New South Wales-based transport operators to pay stamp duty on the purchase of new truck trailers; delivering a new livestock loading scheme for New South Wales; and introducing concessional mass limit [CML] exemptions for the 2012-13 grain harvest. The Government has worked in partnership with the New South Wales Police Force and industry to deliver a 79 per cent drop in the past year in the number of trucks detected speeding at more than 105 kilometres per hour; delivered a two-axle bus-coach mass limit increase from 16.5 tonnes to 18 tonnes; and worked with Transport Certification Australia to deliver a new flexible pricing framework and entry options initiative to help reduce the cost of the Intelligent Access Program [IAP].
The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator is just another achievement to add to the long list, with New South Wales providing a funding commitment of more than $10 million to establish the regulator. I suspect this is the largest funding contribution of any State in the country. Importantly, the positioning of New South Wales on the eastern seaboard makes our roads the most frequently travelled by interstate heavy vehicle transport. For this reason, New South Wales has traditionally led the country in safety initiatives and regulatory infrastructure. Therefore, experienced Roads and Maritime Services regulatory officers will work with the national regulator to ensure local expertise and knowledge are retained as well as to encourage best-practice regulation for the heavy 23494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
vehicle industry. The passage of this bill will allow for the benefits of a safe and efficient new national regulator to be realised within New South Wales. I trust that members will lend their support to the implementation of the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013.
I pay tribute to Opposition members, both in the lower House and in this House, for their support for and help in constructing this bill and getting it through. I also congratulate former Minister for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese on his work at the helm of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure. In a phone call the other day he was kind enough to indicate that without my work it would not have happened. That is a bit of mutual back patting but, given that he is heading probably for a different position, it might not hurt. In rationalising the rules between States this bill is important for the future of this State and the country—a bit like joining the rail line between Brisbane and Melbourne. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [3.40 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Be nice.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I am always nice. The object of the bill is to facilitate the adoption of the Heavy Vehicle National Law and its enforcement, modify the national law in its application to New South Wales to preserve existing registration laws for heavy vehicles pending the anticipated commencement of national registration and modify the Heavy Vehicle (Fatigue Management) National Regulation and Heavy Vehicle (Vehicle Standards) National Regulation in their application to New South Wales. The object of the bill is also to set out the terms of the proposed Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Regulation 2013, which will be taken to be a regulation made under the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Act 2013, and to make consequential and other related amendments to road transport legislation and certain other legislation.
The bill is part of a national set of laws designed to improve heavy vehicle regulation in this country, which the Opposition has and will continue to support. However, I and others were concerned about the introduction of this bill. Three months ago the Heavy Vehicle (National Law) Bill 2013 passed through this House and we are now being asked to amend that law through a bill that had to be amended in the other place. The current legislation needs amending because without the amendments proposed in this bill it does not address the need for changes to the national law. The original amending legislation needed amending because it would have put New South Wales outside the national law.
As my colleague in the other place the member for Keira said after he reviewed the original legislation and discussed it with industry stakeholders, a number of concerns were raised that this legislation would be outside national guidelines. These concerns related to a number of aspects of the bill. The first was with regard to fatigue management. One object of the bill, as it was introduced in the other place, was to preserve the operation of certain existing local productivity initiatives and enforcement provisions relating to fatigue management. That would have meant that New South Wales would have a different fatigue management regime than that which would operate in other States.
The Opposition understands the rationale in relation to specific issues of fatigue in New South Wales. I place on record my thanks to the Minister's staff and the departmental officers who briefed Opposition members on this issue. New South Wales is a considerable through-freight State. Fatigue hits drivers when they are in New South Wales and our position on the eastern seaboard makes our roads the most frequently trafficked by interstate heavy vehicle transport. Between one-quarter and one-third of all fatalities on New South Wales roads are caused by interstate drivers of heavy vehicles. Of the interstate drivers of heavy articulated trucks involved in fatal crashes, nearly half were from Queensland, while Victorians accounted for 40 per cent. Furthermore, 26 per cent of single vehicle casualty crashes—which usually indicate speeding or fatigue issues— involve interstate drivers. New South Wales has therefore appropriately developed some of the most stringent fatigue management procedures.
However, advice from my colleague the member for Keira was that industry was clear that it did not want a different set of rules for New South Wales as proposed in the initial legislation. I am pleased that the amendments moved in the other place have resolved this issue. The Opposition sought advice from the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, which has indicated that it is more than comfortable with the amendments that remove the explicit mention of the advance fatigue management hours and allow the New South Wales Minister to apply conditions, if necessary, to an advance fatigue management accreditation approved by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23495
The regulator believes this will help achieve a more consistent national approach, which is what we all want to see after this long process of reform. In other words, the amended amendment bill will give the Minister for Roads and Ports the ability to apply sanctions or conditions on any operator applying for advance fatigue management. This means that if the Minister of the day sees a situation in which an operator is not doing the right thing, or intelligence received raises suspicions that an operator is not doing the right thing, he or she can impose restrictions on the operators to complete the proposed 15.5 hours of advance fatigue management under the national scheme.
The second aspect about which industry representatives were concerned related to prosecutions and the ability of the State to continue to be involved in a prosecution regime. I understand that the amendments passed in the other place have also addressed these concerns more efficiently than the bill as originally introduced. As I said, the Opposition will not be opposing the bill. However, I reiterate the comments made by the shadow Minister for Roads in the other place in which he sought a sunset clause or formal review period for this legislation to ensure that the bill aligns with what is occurring nationally as the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator becomes a fully functioning agency and regulatory body with experts in fatigue management. We would be grateful to hear from the Minister on this issue when he replies to this debate. The Opposition supports the bill. I again thank the Minister's staff for their assistance.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [3.45 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak in debate on the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill seeks to harmonise New South Wales law with the Heavy Vehicle National Law. The Greens will be supporting the bill. The Greens New South Wales have a longstanding commitment to moving freight by rail. Freight by road is necessary to connect freight rail to the ultimate destination of the product, but long-distance trucking for freight should be a thing of the past for the safety of truck drivers and communities and for improving our environment. I hope that the Federal Government follows through on its election promise to investigate an inland freight rail connecting Melbourne and Brisbane via regional New South Wales. Given the history of Labor and the Coalition federally, a more cynical person might expect yet another report but I will give our incoming Federal transport Minister the benefit of the doubt.
Trucking is a dangerous business and the Transport Workers Union estimates the fatality rate is about 10 times that of other industries. No-one should have to put their life at risk to do their job. We also need to put more pressure on the big companies, especially those in the grocery duopoly, to do more for heavy vehicle safety and to invest in making industry safer. National standards in the industry are very important, especially for regional areas that border our neighbouring States. I am glad to see that significant safety measures that have proven to reduce facilities and risks have been retained by New South Wales. I thank the Government for putting this bill forward and I commend it to the House.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.47 p.m.]: The Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 affirms the New South Wales Government's commitment to working with its State and Territory colleagues to cut red tape and reduce the regulatory burden on the heavy vehicle industry. The bill will allow the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to begin applying a more consistent set of rules for heavy vehicle drivers operating across participating State and Territory borders.
This bill builds upon the first Act, which was passed in May, and together the legislation will mean that New South Wales will have all the necessary legislation in place for the commencement of the national regulator. It is further evidence of this State's commitment to national reforms and comes on top of the more than $10 million in funding that New South Wales has provided to support the establishment and first year of operations of the national regulator. I suspect that this is the largest funding contribution of any State and as such the Minister for Roads and Ports should be congratulated in that regard.
I also note that New South Wales has delivered and commenced the National Rail Safety Regulator, the National Maritime Regulator and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator on time. Therefore, our commitment to national transport reform has been demonstrated time and again. One of the key elements of this reform, however, is the acknowledgment that across States differences in local conditions and industry requirements mean that retention of some local variation is necessary to ensure best practice regulation. To be clear, regulations in all States and Territories—not just in New South Wales—differ slightly from the national law. To this end the New South Wales Government has been working closely with the national regulator and the heavy vehicle industry to ensure that key productivity and safety initiatives that are currently in place will be retained in New South Wales following the passage of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
For industry, this means the retention of important productivity initiatives, including the work diary exemption for primary producers operating within 160 kilometres of their farm base and the new livestock 23496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
loading scheme, which allows an extra one tonne floating mass for livestock carriers and which also will be retained by New South Wales. That too is another example of the flexibility introduced by the current Minister for Roads and Ports in this State for the advantage of primary producers and for the advantage of road users more generally. New South Wales's positioning on the eastern seaboard makes our roads the most frequently trafficked by interstate heavy vehicle transport.
For this reason New South Wales traditionally has led the country in safety initiatives and regulatory infrastructure. As a compelling case in point, approximately one-third of fatigued truck driver involvements in casualty crashes in New South Wales were interstate operators. Of the interstate drivers of heavy articulated trucks involved in fatal crashes, nearly one-half were Queenslanders while Victorians accounted for 40 per cent. Furthermore, 26 per cent of single vehicle casualty crashes, which usually indicates speeding or fatigue issues, involved interstate drivers. These are important statistics to place this bill in context.
That is why, in conjunction with our fine colleagues in the NSW Police Force, we have the largest, best-equipped and most active heavy vehicle inspection force in the country. This is something of which we in New South Wales can be very proud. For instance, we have more than 300 vehicle inspectors within Roads and Maritime Services alone, 285 of whom work at the front line of our roads and highways. That is why we spend more than $70 million per year on heavy vehicle enforcement and compliance—the largest annual funding commitment of any State in the country. We make no apologies for these activities; in fact, our efforts in this vital area of road safety increase and become more targeted each and every day. That is why since November 2011 the New South Wales Government has conducted 78 days of heavy vehicle enforcement and compliance, including four targeted and sustained campaigns in and around Australia's second-largest container terminal at Port Botany and numerous campaigns on our major highways, notably the Hume and increasingly now the Newell Highway.
In 2012-13 we inspected more than two million heavy vehicles, intercepted more than 206,000 heavy vehicles and identified more than 36,000 defects. As the through State, we must remain ever watchful. That message is clearly understood. Today if a driver speeds in a truck in New South Wales, he or she will be caught and face the full force of the law. In some cases the truck will be grounded on the spot. The people and Government of New South Wales have zero tolerance for transport operators who tamper with speed limiters. Two weekends ago three Victorian registered B-double trucks were caught doing speeds in excess of 120 kilometres an hour on the Newell Highway in the Central West of New South Wales. All were carrying fresh produce and were southbound on the heavily used Brisbane to Melbourne freight route. Under new road safety laws introduced by the O'Farrell Government last year, trucks caught speeding at or above 115 kilometres an hour are grounded. That was largely in response to the horrific crash we all remember at Menangle on the Hume Highway involving a B-double truck that claimed the lives of three members of the Logan family.
While all the normal speeding and demerit point offences apply to truck drivers who travel above 100 kilometres an hour, if they are detected travelling at or above 115 kilometres an hour they will also bear the brunt of a full speed limiter inspection, which can lead to fines in excess of $16,000 as well as the heavy costs of downtime and significant repair bills. That is exactly the way it should be. As a clearer indication that our campaigns are having a positive effect, in February this year the roads Minister and the police Minister announced a 79 per cent reduction in the past year in the number of trucks detected as speeding at more than 105 kilometres an hour. Our point-to-point heavy vehicle monitoring system is also the most sophisticated and extensive in the country, helping to identify, track and capture speeding trucks at 21 major lengths of road across the State. Three more lengths are planned in the future. We are also toughening up on monitoring and managing heavy vehicle fatigue issues by 27 Safe-T-Cam cameras located at 24 sites across New South Wales.
Our State has led the pilot of electronic work diaries as a potential alternative to the written work diaries that currently are the key tool for implementing heavy vehicle driver fatigue rules. The pilot found that the electronic diaries are feasible from technical, operational and regulatory perspectives and have the potential to generate safety and productivity benefits. In May this year the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure, which is known as SCOTI and does not refer to my friend Mr Scot MacDonald, agreed that an approach to national adoption of electronic diaries be developed by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and the National Transport Commission for consideration by the council later this year.
We agree and we support national heavy vehicle reforms, but we must also protect the people and roads of this great State. New South Wales's participation in the reform of heavy vehicle regulation always has been on the basis that safety standards would not be compromised. For this reason New South Wales will be retaining some important initiatives that currently are in place to ensure that nation-leading safety standards that are 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23497
currently upheld in New South Wales will continue under the Heavy Vehicle National Law. These measures, including the retention of the 90 kilometres an hour speed limit for all road trains operating inside New South Wales borders and the ongoing requirement for the fitting of vehicle monitoring devices, will ensure that heavy vehicle drivers and the community generally will remain safe on New South Wales roads.
Last week the Government moved an amendment to the original bill to allow the New South Wales Minister for Roads and Ports to issue conditions on any advanced fatigue management accreditation. As explained in the other House, this additional condition is necessary while further in-field testing is conducted on a new national scheme for managing fatigue in the industry. This approach will balance safety with productivity and flexibility. The amendments successfully were passed in the lower House and strike the required balance most assuredly. New South Wales has always supported the concept of developing the risk classification scheme to managing fatigue for accredited operators.
Indeed the New South Wales Minister for Roads and Ports has championed the scheme at the national level. However, that has been on the condition of sound evidence that it effectively manages fatigue. The Minister is to be commended for taking such a wholehearted approach. The risk classification scheme has the potential to allow operators to balance their risks. For example, a longer evening rest could permit more work time during the day. New South Wales supports this concept and recognises the productivity benefits it could bring to industry through increased flexibility, notably for rural and regional transport operators such as livestock and grain carriers. One might ask why indeed these reforms were not introduced before now.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Because Labor does not care about country New South Wales.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: One might indeed ask. Productivity seems to be still an anathema to Labor whereas great ideas are being introduced by our Minister for Roads and Ports—ideas that were long in gestation and have introduced flexibility into this area. As opposed to line haulage operators who run on clearly defined routes between major cities and regional centres, livestock and grain carriers are more affected by the vagaries of weather and/or harvesting operations. Hence some added flexibility may well be appropriate. New South Wales supports the concept of developing a risk classification approach to managing fatigue for accredited operators. But, again, this has to be done in a safe and sensible way, as I am sure Opposition members would fully agree. That is why New South Wales has advocated for a pilot that would allow testing in actual transport operations about how different risk parameters interact with other factors and what types of suitable countermeasures are needed to ensure safe fatigue levels.
The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator itself has recognised the newness of the risk classification scheme and has committed to evaluate the new scheme at 12-, 24- and 36-month intervals and report back to Federal and State transport meetings of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure on any refinements that might be necessary. New South Wales wants to be at the forefront of trialling this new approach and is looking forward to working closely with the national regulator and industry to finalise the best, most flexible and safe scheme possible. In New South Wales, productivity does matter. However, we recognise that there was industry concern regarding the provisions in the original bill for fatigue management.
Industry was concerned that New South Wales would be slightly out of step with other States on the eastern seaboard, notably Victoria and Queensland. In turn, this could potentially lead to some timetabling and scheduling issues, as transport operators travelled between the States. Therefore, the Government moved an amendment to align the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 with national fatigue provisions. At the same time, it provided New South Wales with some added assurance, given our increased fatigue risk exposure as the country's through State. More specifically, the New South Wales law will no longer explicitly mention any outer limit hours. Instead, the New South Wales Minister will be able to apply conditions, if considered necessary, to an advanced fatigue management accreditation approved by the national regulator.
Put simply, some transport operators look shiny until one scratches the surface. For example, some operators have been known to doctor their work diaries. This is where local knowledge and experience are so crucial to maintaining heavy vehicle safety and that is essentially the crux of the bill. Roads and Maritime Services vehicle inspectors and police have been working together for years on joint enforcement and compliance operations. Over the years, they have developed a unique set of skills and knowledge. In comparison, the national regulator has just been established.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.
Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day. 23498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE FUNDING
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Aging, and Minister for Disability Services. In light of the fact that last financial year the budget allocation for home care services for the disabled was underspent by $11 million, despite high levels of unmet demand, how will the Minister ensure that all funds allocated in this year's budget for Aging and Disability Services are fully spent?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: This is an unprecedented period of change in the community care sector, with national reforms in both the aged care and disability sectors transforming the way services are funded and delivered. As the largest provider of community care in New South Wales, Home Care Service of NSW is participating in the national reforms. About 80 per cent of Home Care's clients are over the age of 65 or, if Aboriginal, over the age of 50. Most receive services under funding agreements with the Commonwealth Government that will cease in July 2015. The Commonwealth Government is yet to make clear its plans for funding these services after 2015 when it implements reforms to the aged care system. The New South Wales Government funds support for the remaining 20 per cent of Home Care's clients who are under the age of 65, or 50 if Aboriginal.
As people under 65 progressively transfer to the National Disability Insurance Scheme the State funding base for Home Care will shift. Service providers under the National Disability Insurance Scheme will need to change the way they have traditionally operated to participate in a service system that increases choice and control for people with a disability. The Home Care Service of NSW has played an important role in the supply of services over many years, but changes will be required to support clients under the new funding and policy settings of the transformed sector. The New South Wales Government is considering the best options to ensure that the important work Home Care has done is carried forward in a sustainable, flexible and equitable manner. This includes working through options for Aboriginal home care, recognising the need to foster an approach that will still provide safety net services to Aboriginal older people, people with a disability and their families and carers. Any changes will need to be carefully planned to ensure the best outcomes.
I assure members that the Government is committed to ensuring that Home Care's clients are well supported through any change and that they can benefit from the more vibrant and responsive community care sector that is evolving. There will be no immediate change to Home Care services or staff and as little disruption as possible to current arrangements. This year Home Care will again be providing support to approximately 51,000 people across New South Wales, delivering approximately 3.7 million hours of services. New South Wales is a large State and Home Care staff will travel about 1.2 million kilometres to deliver support and will spend about half a million hours in their cars.
As with other government agencies, Home Care is required to contribute to efficiency measures and labour expense savings. Home Care is implementing a number of strategies to achieve this. When staff travel is such a significant part of operations, it is essential to ensure that it is carried out in the most efficient way. To that end, this year Home Care will be trialling a new technology-based service that supports a more efficient rostering of staff, reducing service costs and allowing staff to focus on providing high-quality support. Home Care will be implementing better, more cost-effective arrangements to assist its clients to achieve greater individual choice as to who provides their support.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he further elucidate his answer with particular reference to what he is doing to ensure budgeted moneys are spent?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me a further opportunity to expand on my answer. As indicated, Home Care will be implementing better, more cost-effective arrangements to assist Home Care clients to achieve greater individual choice as to who provides their support. In 2013-14 the Department of Family and Community Services will directly fund those non-government providers who fully assist Home Care clients under subcontracting arrangements. While there is a reduction in Home Care's budget to reflect this efficiency, there is no impact in overall funding for service delivery in New South Wales. As New South Wales moves towards a service system that increases choice and control for people with disability, it can be expected that there will be more variation in Home Care's budget as people exercise individual choice of provider. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23499
GUN CRIME
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise what the Government is doing to tackle gun crime?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Liberal-Nationals Government is getting on with the job of providing the NSW Police Force with the powers it needs to tackle gun crime in New South Wales. The Government is committed to cracking down on gun crime by delivering a wide range of new powers to enable police to search for firearms and to target criminal hangouts. We are committed to providing new search powers and new offences that will apply to firearm prohibition orders and to firearm parts and ammunition. New offences will apply to the supply of a firearm, rather than just the sale of a firearm or giving possession of a firearm to an unauthorised person.
The Government will ensure that criminals are prosecuted for attempting a firearms offence, even if they do not succeed. We will make it easier for police to enter and search premises frequented by serious criminals, such as the club gang houses. The power of the Crime Commission will be increased to allow the investigation of the activities of criminal groups, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs, without specifically identifying beforehand the particular persons to be targeted or the offences for which they are under investigation. Unlike those opposite, who seek to make laws that only tinker around the edges, this tough approach targets criminals with guns by giving police greater search powers, increasing penalties for illegal possession of firearms and cracking down on criminal hangouts and crime dens.
Criminals who are subject to firearm prohibition orders need to know that police will be able to stop and search them in their cars, homes and workplaces. There will be nowhere for criminals to hide. The New South Wales Government is moving to increase the penalty from 10 to 14 years in jail for possession or supply of a firearm or pistol for a person who is subjected to a Firearm Prohibition Order. We are giving police more powers to search for guns without a warrant in criminal hangouts such as disorderly houses under the Restricted Premises Act 1943. That legislation is used from time to time by members of the NSW Police Force. The Government will see that the legislation is updated and modernised to meet the needs of the NSW Police Force when it seeks to meet the concerns of the community.
Police have been doing a fantastic job fighting gun crime, with officers last year taking 9,000 guns, including 729 handguns, off the streets. The commissioner has stated that gun crime remains the biggest priority for the NSW Police Force. With this priority in mind, on 21 August 2013 Operation Talon was launched, bringing together into one unit work previously undertaken by Operation Apollo, Operation Spartan and Operation Kinarra, working from a single stream of intelligence and tasked centrally. Operation Talon is headed by Detective Superintendent Gavin Dengate from the Eastern Beaches local area command—what a great job he is doing—reporting directly to Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas. This operation draws on the combined resources of all local area commands, squads from within the State Crime Command, officers from the Major Events and Incidents Group, and support from specialist commands. The New South Wales Government and police will not rest until criminals using guns to harm and intimidate others are brought to justice. Working with police we continue to ensure that we play our part in hitting the criminals at every opportunity.
AGEING AND DISABILITY SERVICES
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. How will the Minister protect the State's most vulnerable people from any Commonwealth Government funding cuts to State ageing and disability programs following the Prime Minister's decision to abolish the Cabinet posts of Ageing and Disability Reform and relegate them to a junior assistant Minister, who sits outside the Cabinet?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I am surprised by the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought he would have read the Prime Minister's press release about the appointment. The people of New South Wales are incredibly relieved that we now have an Abbott Government. As the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services those opposite can know I am relieved that we have a new Minister in those portfolios.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Answer the question; don't give us the political spin. 23500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I am sorry, Mr President, but I was a little taken aback by that interjection from, of all people, the Hon. Steve Whan. Let me read part of the Prime Minister's press release so that those opposite can understand exactly what occurred. It states:
The Hon Kevin Andrews MP will be Minister for Social Services and be responsible for the largest area of expenditure and payments in the Budget. The new department will also be responsible for settlement services, multicultural affairs and the administration of aged care. Senator Mitch Fifield—
a great senator who has spoken to me already on numerous occasions since my appointment—
will be Assistant Minister for Social Services responsible for the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme…
How can the Prime Minister possibly be more specific when talking about disability services than specifying that Senator Mitch Fifield is responsible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS]? What more could be required?
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Having a Minister would be good.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: You do have a Minister. The Minister's title is "Minister for Social Services". Those opposite believe that because the word "disability" is not in the Minister's title, in some way he is not responsible for disability services. Again, the Prime Minister made it very clear that the senator will be responsible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Interestingly, in the few weeks I have been the Minister for Disability Services I have had numerous opportunities to speak to many clients, carers and service providers. One thing brought to my attention is that many clients, carers and support services actually do not want the word "disability" in the Minister's title. If there is anything I can do as the new Minister, they tell me to remove that word. The Prime Minister has done that. [Time expired.]
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FIREFIGHTING REMUNERATION
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is it a fact that National Parks and Wildlife Service firefighters are paid at double-time for the entire duration of any major fire declared a section 44 fire under the Rural Fires Act? Do Parks salaried staff, who hold a role in the Incident Management Team, also receive double their usual pay rate for the duration of any such fires?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for that question. Of course, I will refer that very detailed question to the Minister for the Environment and seek a response.
NSW POLICE FORCE MOTORCYCLE RESPONSE TEAM
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the launch of the new Motorcycle Response Team for Western Sydney?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The only thing missing when we were at Parramatta was the Hon. Charlie Lynn on his motorcycle. As the people of New South Wales know, we are a Government committed to delivering the infrastructure blatantly overlooked by Labor for 16 long years. Whether it is that great game-changer for Western Sydney, WestConnex, or Bridges for the Bush, we are getting on with providing the infrastructure our communities deserve. In the meantime, we are engaging in short-term and practical measures that make a big difference to congestion, such as our Pinch Point program and our Motorcycle Response Team [MRT], which is really the NSW Police Force's Motorcycle Response Team.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Why are you answering the question?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We are sponsoring. We are paying for it. The Motorcycle Response Team is making great gains in the central business district. The motorcycle team has been targeting known trouble spots and responding quickly to incidents to get traffic flowing again and reduce delays. Over the past 12 months Sydney's central business district has seen a 20 per cent overall reduction in crashes and a 30 per cent reduction in pedestrian crashes in areas patrolled by the Motorcycle Response Team. Last Friday I was delighted to visit police headquarters and with Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn meet the seven officers who make up the new Motorcycle Response Team to be based in Parramatta central business district. I was pleased to see 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23501
the colours of the Parramatta National Rugby League team, the Eels, reflected in the yellow and blue markings on the motorcycles—a gesture that will resonate with the local community. I was disappointed to notice the cycles at the Transport Management Centre did not display the South Sydney Rabbitohs' colours.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: On Monday.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You have the Parramatta tie on I see.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a faded Canberra Raiders' tie. The Parramatta Motorcycle Response Team will be looking to replicate the great results achieved by the Sydney central business district team to combat pedestrian deaths and traffic accidents in Sydney's west. Over the past five years Parramatta's central business district has had more than 3,000 vehicle crashes, four pedestrians killed and 196 injured. Major arterial roads, such as the Great Western Highway and Victoria Road, will be patrolled to effectively manage serious traffic delays during peak hour so commuters have a better journey. The team also will cover areas including Westmead and Harris Park. Officers will respond to traffic congestion and promote the free flow of traffic by targeting choked intersections, pedestrian offences and vehicles running red lights.
The community can expect to see the motorcycle response team at bus interchanges, major intersections and pedestrian thoroughfares to ensure traffic flow for the benefit of all commuters. The team will be linked to police at the Transport Management Centre and will have access to up-to-date real-time information and closed-circuit television footage of major roads to enable them to respond quickly to incidents. We want to ease the pain for motorists and boost efficiency in Sydney's second employment destination, and this is another common sense measure that I know will see great results in this community.
FERAL PIG CULLS
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of claims by the Livestock Health and Pest Authority that 750 pigs were culled from paddocks around Trangie and Carinda before this year's cotton harvest? Is the Minister aware that the same organisation claimed 1,900 animals were culled in a 21-hour period—which works out to 90 an hour or one every 40 seconds—in the Macquarie Marshes in July? Will the Minister have the Livestock Health and Pest Authority pest project manager provide the House with full details of those culls, including but not limited to how many people were involved, what methods of hunting were used and whether any of the controversial helicopter gunships were involved in either of these culls?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question, which is seeking a detailed answer on the number of pigs that were slaughtered in the Macquarie Marshes and at Trangie and Carinda. I will seek an answer from my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries.
HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Why has the Minister publicly denied the Government has cut funding to community care services for older people under 65 when his own budget papers state that $208 million will be spent in this area over the current financial year, which is a full $23 million less than the allocation reported in the previous year's budget?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I do not accept the assertion that I have denied certain expenditure. The well-known budget papers speak for themselves. The honourable member would not be able to ask this question if the budget papers did not state those exact figures. The figure of $23 million that was cited by the honourable member is understood to be the difference between the published budget papers from 2012-13 and 2013-14. That is $231 million as announced in the New South Wales 2012-13 budget and $208 million as announced in the New South Wales 2013-14 budget, the difference being $23 million.
That amount is comprised of the following: a one-off allocation of $5 million in the 2012-13 budget to assist with the process of splitting the former Home and Community Care program between New South Wales and the Commonwealth. "One-off" means it will not be repeated in the next budget. In addition, $5 million is reduced funding for 2012-13 and 2013-14 for efficiencies in the operation of the Home and Community Care 23502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
program. As previously indicated, more clients—not less—have received home care services due to the efficiencies. The balance of $13 million relates to the disputed funding from the Commonwealth Government. I make it clear that I am talking about the then Commonwealth Government under Prime Minister Rudd and, previous to that, Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Those opposite are well aware of that and were well aware of it when those questions were first raised during budget estimates.
However, those opposite have made no attempt whatsoever to contact their Federal counterparts to ask why this money has not been returned to the people of New South Wales. They simply want to blame this Government. Had any contact been made to them, it would have been forwarded to me. Clearly, no contact has been made. Let us remember that the former Federal Minister responsible for this portfolio made no attempt whatsoever to contact me during my period as Minister. The New South Wales Government is looking forward to working with the new Abbott Federal Government and Senator Mitch Fifield, the Federal Minister for Disability Services, so we can resolve this important issue of appropriate funding for our community care program. I note that the Commonwealth Government has advised that it will seek to finalise the issue by 31 October 2013. I repeatedly called on the former Commonwealth Government to respond and we will await the response from the new Federal Government.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in relation to his comment that he has not publicly denied funding cuts when he was quoted in today's Sydney Morning Herald as follows:
The Minister for Disability Services John Ajaka strongly denied claims that the government has cut $23 million from the NSW Community Care program
In his answer he indicated that there was in fact a $23 million reduction.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: That is clearly a new question because the honourable member has introduced new information.
The PRESIDENT: Order! While I had some difficulty following the whole question, I rule that the question is in order.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I indicated earlier that I did not accept the assertion of funding cuts. I suggest that the honourable member look at the two quotes, specifically the word "funding".
ILLAWARRA-SHOALHAVEN AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE SERVICES
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and the Minister for Disability Services, and the Minister for The Illawarra. Will the Minister update the House on what the New South Wales Government is doing for older people and people with a disability in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven area?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Approximately 84,115 older people who are aged 65 years and older are living in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region. This represents 18 per cent of the population in the Illawarra. By 2031 the region will have the second highest total population of people aged 65 and over in any region of New South Wales. The situation brings with it a unique and complex set of challenges and opportunities. Last week I stated that the New South Wales Government is keenly aware that people aged over 65 are the fastest growing population group in New South Wales. That is why, in July 2012, we launched a New South Wales Ageing Strategy, which is a whole-of-government and whole-of-community strategy with a vision for people in New South Wales to experience the benefits of living longer.
The New South Wales Government is strongly committed to ageing well, and the Ageing Strategy contains 12 new initiatives that generally require the involvement of more than one department. The ageing population of New South Wales brings special challenges for those parent carers of people with disability. Older parent carers and their families continue to be supported by many programs, and have targeted places in respite, case coordination, day programs and supported accommodation.
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting The Disability Trust in Fairy Meadow to announce an extra 50 flexible respite places, totalling $400,000 for The Disability Trust to deliver in the region. Each flexible respite place will provide a minimum of 168 hours of respite support for families and carers of a person with disability. These 50 extra places are part of the 750 one-off respite funding places that the Government has been 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23503
able to deliver through the Stronger Together 2 program. The Stronger Together plan will result in $2.02 billion being invested over five years to deliver 47,200 new places for people with disability who live in New South Wales. This is the largest investment in disability by any State; it is a five-year commitment.
The Ageing, Disability and Home Care budget for 2013-14 is significant and reflects the Government's commitment to the disability and ageing sectors. Some $2.76 billion has been dedicated to these very important portfolios, including an estimated $103 million in recurrent funding to provide improved services for people with disability, their families and carers in the Illawarra. This investment will provide for a range of disability and community care services, including accommodation support, flexible respite and support networks. The budget also incorporates approximately $15 million in capital funding for the Illawarra and will include constructions projects such as a five-bedroom group home in Coniston and a new group home in Dapto. The New South Wales Government remains committed to delivering services to older people, people with disability, their families and carers in the Illawarra.
COAL SEAM GAS
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. A leaked briefing note prepared for Minister Hartcher recommends that the terminology "coal seam gas" and the acronym "CSG" be replaced with the standard term "natural gas from coal seams" and that the Land and Water Commissioner and the Chief Scientist adopt this terminology. What is wrong with the existing terminology "coal seam gas" and the acronym "CSG"? What public benefit is there in changing the terminology to "natural gas" from "coal seams"?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Assuming the information the member provided is true: a leaked briefing note—which is always a big assumption—I cannot see a problem. I like the term "natural gas" because it better describes what the product is: natural gas. It has always been natural gas. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is part of the gas deniers. The Greens are gas deniers. It is a natural product, so why should it not be called "natural gas"? I do not know. The Greens are trying to create bogeymen everywhere. If you look inside the koala suit there is probably a Green. What a great disappointment.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Government act to change the name of the Office of Coal Seam Gas to the Office of Natural Gas from Coal Seams?
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is a new question and it is out of order.
MINISTER FOR ROADS AND PORTS OFFICIAL TRAVEL EXPENSES
The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that official documentation on the Government website shows that the Minister spent $51,240—or $6,400 per day—during his eight-day trip to Dubai and Abu Dhabi in July, will the Minister advise how much of this amount was spent on limousines and other chauffeured services?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The report on my trip to Dubai and Abu Dhabi is already on the website. To the best of my knowledge we did not hire limousines anywhere. We travelled in taxis a couple of times. We were in embassy cars.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You probably jogged to appointments.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We did not walk far in Abu Dhabi with temperatures of more than 50 degrees Celsius. In answer to the honourable member's question, which is about a trade mission, we have put engagement with our international trading partners and investors at the forefront of our economic agenda for New South Wales. Aligning with the New South Wales international engagement strategy, ably assisted by NSW Trade and Investment, my visit followed the Premier's successful mission to Hong Kong and the Deputy Premier's mission to the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong in April, which built upon critical trade relationships in our key markets. From 6 July to 12 July I visited Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Hong Kong. During that period I attended 20 business meetings, two functions and several government meetings. Travelling with me were Peter Duncan, Chief Executive of NSW Roads and Maritime Services, and Jason de Sousa, my chief of staff.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Great bloke. 23504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They are both great guys. Appropriately, the costs of the mission for me and my chief of staff were borne by my office budget, with the exception of an event promoting the agribusiness exports of New South Wales requested by the Deputy Premier. Our accommodation included an overnight flight from Dubai to Singapore. In fact, in that period we spent three nights sleeping in planes so we were saving money for the State—perhaps we might trawl through some of the old visits taken by the Hon. Walt Secord. Full details and costs of the mission have been published on the Roads and Maritime Services website. I will be pleased to table the report.
I have to say that we were warmly received, particularly by some of the larger funds and companies that are positively recognising our clear strategy to recycle capital to invest in new economic infrastructure such as WestConnex, the M1 to M2 link, light rail and revitalising the Newcastle central business district. On several occasions executives I met with remarked on the significant shift in approach by our Government to welcoming investors to our State, noting that the sovereign risks created by the previous New South Wales Labor Government and perpetuated by that shambolic Labor administration in Canberra were no longer present in New South Wales. The significant damage to the reputation of New South Wales in key markets caused by Iemma-Rees-Keneally Labor was made apparent to me at every meeting. This damage was caused by Labor's failed infrastructure planning and exemplified by the shocking revelations of Labor's activities in government that have come to light through the Independent Commission Against Corruption process—
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister does not need an echo.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: —and the spin of the member who asked this question. It has taken a significant effort to repair the damage but the Government is getting there. [Time expired.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! Under Standing Order No. 54 (1) Ministers may table documents at any time when there is no other business before the House. Minister, do you wish to table the document that you referred to in your answer?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do. I table a document relating to a Trade and Investment Mission to the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Hong Kong SAR undertaken by me as the Minister for Roads and Ports between 6 and 12 July 2013.
Document tabled.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer and advise how much of the $1,323 spent on "ground and surface transport" detailed in the "Estimated Costs and Detail of Travel" report that is published on the Government's website, and has now been tabled, went towards limousines and other chauffeur-driven car services?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We were not travelling with the Hon. Walt Secord; we were travelling taxi style. That is the way of the new Government—sleeping on planes, staying in mid-level hotels and getting on with the job. What we heard when we were over there was the significant damage to the reputation of New South Wales caused by the previous Labor Government. Our job, and it is taking significant effort, is to repair that damage. We are getting there. The future for New South Wales is one of being outward looking, and engaging with our key markets in Asia, North America and other markets. We will never apologise for putting the interests of our State first by engaging with key investors and building relationships with our key trading partners for the long-term benefit of our citizens, our State and our country.
To exemplify the fact that we are fair dinkum in engaging with the sovereign wealth funds to look at investment in our community and our infrastructure, the Premier has been there and the Deputy Premier has been there—and I was there as one of the major infrastructure ministers. I believe that to keep that relationship going we need to have other ministers visit who are working in their areas. We are doing the hard work—we are engaging in Asia and we are fixing the mess that was left by an incompetent previous Government that trashed the New South Wales brand locally and overseas. We were not living high on the hog; we were working our butts off for New South Wales. But those opposite would not understand that.
NSW AGEING STRATEGY
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is to the Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services. Further to the answer the Minister gave in question time last Wednesday on the New South 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23505
Wales Ageing Strategy—in which he spoke about three of the recommendations in the strategy—will he advise the House how he will be publicly reporting his progress on implementing the remaining 123 recommended actions?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for her question. I find it extraordinary that those opposite, after 16 years of failing to take any appropriate action whatsoever in relation to an ageing strategy, have now all of a sudden seen the light.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the first time.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As I was saying, I find it extraordinary that members opposite would, after 16 years of failing to provide anything in relation to an ageing strategy and in relation to ageing and seniors—
The Hon. Helen Westwood: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I specifically asked the Minister to outline how he will publicly report on the progress of 123 recommended actions.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The O'Farrell Government launched the NSW Ageing Strategy in July 2012. It was a whole-of-government, whole-of-community strategy with a vision for the people of New South Wales to experience the benefits of living longer. One of the best things we can do to help older people stay independent is to make our neighbourhoods and town centres easy to get around.
The Hon. Steve Whan: You could get a new title of the "Guardian of the fountain of youth".
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Clearly the Hon. Steve Whan is not drinking from that fountain. I saw a picture of him from a few years ago, and he has not aged well at all. I strongly suggest that the Hon. Steve Whan find that fountain of youth and drink from it; he has not aged well.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is that the Minister was not being relevant in the answer he was giving to the question he was asked. Also he was casting aspersions on another member of this place which were inappropriate. It really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: To the point of order: I was in fact being relevant. I saw a photo of Hon. Steve Whan from years ago when he was a very good-looking man.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The remarks of the Minister were, as a lawyer would say, the fruit of a poisoned tree. The Hon. Steve Whan well and truly opened the door to that exchange with his interjections—not that that in any way justifies the Minister's disorderly comments. The Minister may conclude his answer in the 18 seconds remaining, if he wishes.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I will indicate a number of the highlights involving the significant progress of the New South Wales Government delivery of initiatives due for completion in the first year. [Time expired.]
EPPING TO THORNLEIGH THIRD TRACK PROJECT
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Transport. I am advised that work is underway on the Epping to Thornleigh third rail track, including the removal of several bunya pines cherished by the community. In the budget estimates process the Minister advised that a biodiversity offset package will be developed for this project. What biodiversity mapping was undertaken for the area and is there any update on what the biodiversity offset package will be?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for her question. This is not an answer that will come back from a budget estimates question, so I will refer it to the Minister for a detailed answer.
HUNTER INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT FUND
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister outline the Government's investment in the Hunter region through the Hunter Infrastructure and Investment Fund? 23506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question and in doing so I recognise her role in attracting investment to the Hunter, with Aspen Medical considering investing in our region. The four-year $350 million Hunter Infrastructure and Investment Fund was established to improve the economic and social infrastructure of the Hunter region. The Hunter is the largest regional economy in Australia, and the Government is providing the tools the region needs to ensure its continuing contribution to the economy of not only New South Wales but also the nation. As a result, a series of priority transport, health and education infrastructure projects identified by the Government prior to the 2011 election are now being delivered.
Construction is well underway for several road upgrade projects under the fund with major projects including the $63 million widening of the Nelson Bay Road, the $44 million upgrade of the New England Highway through Maitland and the $20 million upgrade of the road network servicing the Hunter Valley wine district. The Government has also invested $33 million from the fund into priority health care facilities for the region, with $20 million to acquire land for the new Hunter Valley hospital at Metford and $8 million towards a new cancer research and treatment facility at the Calvary Mater Hospital Newcastle to name but two projects. Some $25 million has also been allocated to the relocation of the Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Newcastle to the city centre—providing the city with extended tertiary education offerings and making a key contribution to the city revitalisation efforts. A further $60 million is allocated to making the Government's Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy a reality by delivering a new transport interchange for the city.
Last Friday I accompanied the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to the Hunter to announce further infrastructure allocations under the second round of the fund. Under the second round, the New South Wales Government is funding eight new projects worth a total of $48.7 million—just short of $50 million. The response of the Hunter region has been phenomenal, and the response from the Hunter media has been exceptional. They have embraced these announcements and they are excited about them. Importantly, the projects were nominated by the Hunter community. We hear those opposite attacking again. I am telling the truth. I have in my hands the front page of the local newspaper. It is not a prop—this is the truth; this was the front page of the paper last week. Importantly, these projects were nominated by the Hunter community for the community and recommended to the Government by the fund's Hunter-based advisory board.
We announced that the Government will contribute $11 million towards the expansion of the Newcastle Airport, which will boost tourism and improve access for doing business throughout the region. The Government will also invest $7 million in the expansion of the neonatal intensive care unit at John Hunter Hospital. That is in addition to the recently announced $12.9 million of funding for its paediatric intensive care unit and will ensure that Hunter patients will have access to the best facilities for sick children and babies. A further $7.3 million has been committed towards the construction of a new $11.3 million regional football facility at Speers Point.
The facility will provide talented football players with access to high-quality training facilities that are conducive to high skill level development. That is critical investment in the lead-up to the Lake Macquarie International Children's Games in December 2014 and the Newcastle matches of the 2015 Asian Football Confederation [AFC] Asian Football Cup. It was great to be there with local members, including Andrew Cornwell from Charlestown, Gary Edwards from Swansea and the outstanding member for Newcastle, Tim Owen. Craig Baumann came down from Port Stephens and Andrew Stoner also attended. Greg Piper came from Lake Macquarie because he, like us, puts politics aside and recognises the importance of this investment. A Labor mayor from Lake Macquarie also attended. [Time expired.]
WITNESS PROTECTION UNIT RELOCATION
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General. I refer to reports on 2GB radio this morning. Is it a fact that the Government is relocating the witness protection program from Sydney to Goulburn? If so, what is the rationale behind this decision and could this move endanger the lives of witnesses in protection and make it hard for them to maintain family relationships?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I refer the member to the quite extensive answer the Attorney General gave on this matter at question time in the Legislative Assembly today. I think that will allay any concerns the member has about the approach taken by the Attorney General on this matter. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23507
LIVING LIFE MY WAY AMBASSADORS AND CHAMPIONS PROGRAM
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister update the House on the Living Life My Way Ambassadors and Champions Program?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for his question. The New South Wales Government continues to demonstrate its commitment to building the capacity of people with disability and their families and carers to confidently exercise choice and control in their lives. In April 2012 the Government launched the Living Life My Way Ambassadors and Champions Program as its first capacity-building initiative. The purpose of the program is to recruit up to 50 people with disability, family members and carers who are already managing their disability support so that they can share their stories to inspire, encourage and motivate other people about the possibilities for their lives and raise awareness in the community about people with disability.
The first 19 ambassadors and champions were appointed in March 2013. They are a diverse group of people who share a common passion to help people with disability, their families and carers to live their best possible life. As the pioneers of this program, their enthusiasm has transformed its potential into a reality that is beyond what anyone had anticipated. They have shared their inspiring stories at a variety of events across New South Wales, including the My Choice Matters Getting Started workshops, National Disability Services regional support worker conferences, the Living Life My Way Aboriginal Yarn Ups and the Information on Disability and Education and Awareness Services Expo in Newcastle.
At a local level, ambassadors and champions are sharing their experiences with diverse audiences at high schools and TAFEs, community disability expos, Lions Clubs and other club meetings and at service provider staff training workshops. With support from Ageing, Disability and Home Care staff some ambassadors and champions are organising their own community-based events. Feedback indicates that audiences have a strong appetite for stories that bring the person-centred message to life. As at 13 September 2013 our ambassadors and champions had participated in 98 events and 43 more are scheduled between now and March 2014. There has also been significant media interest, with 17 appearances in local newspapers, on radio and on television. Feedback from event organisers has been overwhelmingly positive. The following feedback from a National Disability Services regional support worker is a typical example:
... "fantastic", "inspirational and passionate" and "motivational speakers that drove the message home". The presentations had a significant impact in inspiring delegates about their future in the disability sector.
Feedback from our ambassadors and champions has been equally enthusiastic, including:
I ... learned that people love hearing stories from real people like me in the flesh rather than case studies presented on a PowerPoint. Big tick for the Ambassadors and Champions initiative!
And:
People love hearing stories of how person centred and individualised funding has improved my quality of life.
A number of trips have been organised for country and regional areas throughout New South Wales to ensure that people from remote communities have the opportunity to hear our ambassadors. In August 2013 I approved the appointment of a further 26 ambassadors and champions, which means there are now more than 45 ambassadors and champions. I thank them for their great work.
V8 SUPERCARS CONTRACT
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Major Events. When did negotiations for a new contract for V8 Supercar racing at Sydney Olympic Park commence? Will the Minister also tell the House what consultation occurred with the local community and the councils that represent them?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I suspect if we looked at a time line the commencement of discussions would have occurred during the term of the previous of Government.
Dr John Kaye: The new contract. 23508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Did you say the new contract?
Dr John Kaye: Yes.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If the question is specific to the new contract, I will seek a response from the appropriate Minister.
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTS
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Aging, and Minister for Disability Services. How many jobs and positions will be lost as a result of the decision of the Government to merge the State's 17 Family and Community Services districts into 15?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Let us look at the entire aspect of the disability services that this Government provides. We were the first State to sign up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS]. Our current budget to provide funding for 95,000 clients is in excess of $2.7 billion. After signing up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the previous Federal Government, to its credit, committed $3.3 billion. That will give us a total budget in future of—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You can't add it up.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: No, I am doing it slowly so that you understand it. The total budget in future will be $6.4 billion.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Minister was asked a specific question about the impact of the restructuring of a department for which he is responsible. I ask you to bring the Minister back to the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of merging from 17 to 15 organisations.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As I was saying, the situation is that we have a total budget of $6.4 billion. Through a bipartisan arrangement with the Federal Government, that will increase our clients from 95,000 to 140,000. What do Opposition members do? They do not thank the then Commonwealth Government for this bipartisan approach and additional funding and they do not thank the New South Wales Government for being the first to sign up on the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS]. What they want to do is scaremonger. At every opportunity they get, they want to spread the story of loss of jobs. They should do the simple mathematics. How can there be a loss of jobs in the sector when we go from $2.74 billion to $6.4 billion and from 95,000 to 140,000 clients? Instead of saying "Thank you" and "Are you certain there are enough people to fill all the new jobs that will be created in this sector?", they want to scaremonger and start telling people they are losing their jobs.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have further questions, I ask them to place them on notice as question time has concluded for today.
MINISTER FOR ROADS AND PORTS OFFICIAL TRAVEL EXPENSES
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier during question time I was asked whether I used limousines during my travels on behalf of the State. I am pleased to report that in Singapore and Abu Dhabi we used the Consul-General's car, and a very good car it was. In Hong Kong and Dubai we used hire cars with a driver, which were multipurpose vehicles [MPVs]. There were no stretch limousines for us. The Hon. Walt Secord is thinking and dreaming of the old days when he was on tour.
Questions without notice concluded.
Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23509
STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT
Report: Adequacy of Water Storages in New South Wales
Debate resumed from 26 August 2013.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD [5.02 p.m.]: I did not serve on the committee but I will make some remarks on this very fine report. Obviously the committee did a lot of detailed work. I will comment on recommendations 8 and 9. Recommendation 9 states:
That the NSW Government clarify with the Commonwealth Government the NSW Government's liability for environmental water releases made under the Murray Darling Basin Plan that inundate private land, in time to feed into the process of developing the water sharing plans that must comply with the Plan and be enacted by 2019.
I want to highlight the importance of that recommendation. In the Gwydir area around the Gwydir wetlands there is the exact ongoing problem that has been highlighted by this report. With the best of intentions of preserving the Ramsar protected areas and other good environmental reasons, basically environmental flows are pushed down the Gwydir wetlands system. But the impact highlighted by the recommendation really hits home when some of the wheat country that is inundated by the environmental flows is considered. One grower told me he lost 5,000 hectares of wheat, or 12,500 acres, which is an incredible loss for a grower. It might amount to something of the order of 3,000 tonnes of wheat at $300 a tonne, and he might be looking at $90,000.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Nine hundred thousand dollars.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I beg your pardon, $900,000. When environmental flows are not done properly, it results in incredible private loss. It does not happen every year but when the dams and water storages are full. We are experiencing the dominance of the environmental flow over the livelihood of the growers. It must be remembered that in the Gwydir area there is not a wheat crop every year—it could be two crops in five years or three crops in five years—but in the second or third good year, a grower could very well be faced with the inundation of environmental water flows and a considerable loss of wheat country. Of all the recommendations I read, recommendation 9 is probably the most important and one of the best recommendations in the report. I certainly commend the committee for it. I will briefly discuss recommendation 8, which addresses the very difficult issue of prioritising the town water, environmental, high security and general security and even supplementary flows. Recommendation 8 states:
That the NSW Government amend the principles of the Water Management Act 2000 to ensure that the commercial water supply for towns and utilities and high security needs in regulated rivers are prioritised above environmental needs.
This is a very difficult issue. If I learnt anything in my 18 months in Griffith it was how difficult water policy is. There are winners and losers and it is incredibly difficult. I make the point that the priorities are about right most of the time, which might not be in the spirit of recommendation 8, but in the New South Wales Office of Water they have the rocket, which is that the town and urban categories get their water first, then environmental, then high security and then general categories get theirs, in that order. But what is probably not understood as well is that when flows are low and when the Blowering Dam, the Burrinjuck and the Murrumbidgee in particular are low, every category is reduced. The towns certainly get their water for human and industrial uses, and that is how it should be: It is a very small volume of water.
Dr John Kaye: They reduce it too.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I accept that interjection, which is a good point. Those categories are reduced when water restrictions are applied. The environmental flows also are reduced. In some years, the general security category does not get its allocation and in some years there has been no general water allocated. Usually the high security allocation also is reduced. In 2008-09 the Murrumbidgee allocation was approximately 70 per cent. The New South Wales Office of Water has a pretty good understanding of what is needed during dire conditions to make the river system work as well as it can. In Australia we have some of the most variable water flows and water systems in the world. The reality is that there will not be running water in streams in every year. Some of the streams and systems that feed into larger rivers are ephemeral and simply miss out.
I accept the spirit of recommendation 8. It needs ongoing consideration. Recently on the radio Commissioner David Harriss made a point that should not be forgotten. Dams and water storages were built when communities and societies made a choice and a decision that we wanted productive agriculture in those 23510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
regions. Some of the execution might not have been as good as it could have been with salination and some of the other issues that arose. However, a decision was made, pre-war and post-war, that dam storages would be for inland regional development; they were going to be there particularly for the industries that needed high security—mainly the horticulture industry. When debating these issues, we should remember the words of the commissioner.
Water storages such as the Snowy Mountains scheme were built deliberately for hydroelectricity and in order to take some of the variability out of our systems. The Snowy Mountains scheme remains one of the defining developments of this country. My father worked on the Snowy Mountains scheme and was one of the contributors to its development. I commend the Standing Committee on State Development for its inquiry into the adequacy of water storages in New South Wales. It addressed a lot of difficult issues and water storage is probably one of the most difficult issues faced by the NSW Government and the Parliament. The report of the committee is a fine work and I hope that the Government gives it due consideration.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [5.10 p.m.]: I thank the Standing Committee on State Development, the parliamentary secretariat and all those who gave evidence for this important inquiry on the adequacy of water storages in New South Wales. The report of the inquiry gives wide-ranging recommendations and I will start with and commend the focus it places on integrated water management. Recommendations 3, 16, 18 and 19 highlight the need for managing water in an integrated manner, including demand management, water conservation and efficiency measures, water recycling and collaboration between stakeholders and communities.
I have worked and performed research in this area in local government and as an academic. Many local governments in New South Wales have been at the forefront of implementing best-practice water management, especially using water-sensitive urban design principles to achieve sustainable stormwater management. An integrated water cycle approach acknowledges that management of water is complex and multidimensional, and is underpinned by the knowledge that catchments and water are interconnected, including the hydrologic, geomorphic and ecological aspects and the social, political and economic systems within catchments. We all know that water is a renewable but finite resource on which all life depends. Hence, conserving water and planning wisely to meet current and future requirements for all uses—including human needs, environmental sustainability, agriculture, recreation and economic uses—is critical.
We also now know that traditional, fragmented approaches to water management have led to water scarcity, ecological damage and pollution of our precious water resources. Some of the obvious problems have been with over-extraction of ground and surface water and large dams which have resulted in reduced environmental flows and alteration of fish habitat. According to the New South Wales State of the Environment 2012 report, high levels of water extraction relative to total river flows over an extended period has affected the health of aquatic ecosystems such as the wetland communities of Macquarie Marshes. Polluted stormwater, sewage discharge and agricultural runoff into our streams, rivers and oceans have been responsible for a decrease in water quality. Future water management will have to rely on innovative ways of thinking and doing, which means considering all parts of the water cycle as one system. It means considering requirements for water for anthropogenic and ecological processes and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the process.
One of the basic principles of integrated water cycle management is to devise management strategies that ensure environmental, social and economic outcomes—and that these outcomes are met simultaneously. Within this context, it is troubling that the report recommends changing the Water Management Act 2000 to prioritise commercial water supply for towns over environmental needs. This is a simplistic and short-term way of thinking, which does not meet the criteria of integrated management. Nor does it acknowledge the intrinsic link between people and our environment or the risks we are facing because of climate change. With impending climate change there will be more hydrological changes with respect to shifts in the seasonality of rainfall patterns and the severity of flooding and droughts. Those things will create risks and uncertainties about the availability of water.
We need contemporary approaches to manage water—such as integrated water cycle management, which recognises the complexity and systems view, where we can fulfil triple-bottom-line criteria by using a diverse range of non-structural and structural tools, such as water conservation and efficiency measures, education programs, pricing incentives, low impact or water-sensitive urban planning and design, and recycling and reusing rainwater, stormwater, and sewage. The most important benefit of an integrated approach to water systems is the potential to increase the range of opportunities and options available in order to be able to develop more sustainable systems. We no longer need massive stand-alone systems such as dams or desalination plants. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23511
The Kurnell desalination plant—approved and constructed during the last Labor Government—did not meet the criteria of integrated water management. The desalination plant was approved under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The process did not consider a balanced view of economic, social and environmental outcomes; it did not adequately consider alternative options, such as water recycling and conservation; it neglected cumulative impacts; and it did not consider stakeholder and community views. In a private member's statement to the New South Wales Parliament, a New South Wales resident was quoted as stating that the approval process was:
A sham of a public consultation process and the Government has demonstrated that it is determined to ride roughshod over the residents.
It was a top-down, technocratic decision and we are all paying for it now. Unfortunately, the O'Farrell Government is about to make the same mistakes with its proposed reform of the New South Wales planning system, which will reduce the power of local communities, centralise planning powers and reject the concept of ecologically sustainable development. In today's world of innovation and technology and with an improved understanding of the interconnections between natural and human systems, we can simultaneously meet the needs of our people and the environment--and that is what we should be working towards.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.16 p.m.]: As a member of the Standing Committee on State Development I thank my fellow members of the committee, the secretariat staff and Hansard for venturing around the countryside to places far and wide. I also thank those who took the time to make written and oral submissions to the committee. It was very illuminating. When I first heard that the committee was going to be looking into the adequacy of water storages, I envisaged heading off, Sturt-like, into the inner regions of the country, seeking spacious valleys upon which we could lay reams of concrete and steel, harnessing the waterways for the future profit of New South Wales.
As it turned out, it was nowhere nearly as exciting as that. However, it was exciting in a different way. It was exciting to see the wonderful achievements that the Government has made in relation to proper water management across the State—in particular, the way that the agricultural communities of this State have responded to scarcity and to the needs of the future. Those communities have done that by thinking creatively, by developing and by doing a whole range of things which do not need Government dictation and do not require regulation or laws, but which simply require us to allow farmers to get with the job that they do best. The first two recommendations have a complementarity to them:
Recommendation 1: That the NSW Government clearly communicate to stakeholders the purpose of all major water storages in New South Wales; and
Recommendation 2: That the NSW Government publish the outcomes of its review of the potential role for Warragamba Dam in flood mitigation.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of what dams are meant to do in New South Wales. Dams are there to store water for productive use. There has been a tendency, in the recent past, to believe that dams are there to introduce flood mitigation techniques to the management of river systems. That, only in the best of times, would be considered as a strategy. The primary purpose of dams in New South Wales is to store water for productive use.
There are a lot of people who are concerned about dams. I notice that Warragamba Dam was suggested for a flood mitigation process for the Hawkesbury River. If one were to believe some people in the community, for example, Australia's Climate Commissioner, by now Warragamba Dam should be empty because of global warming. He predicted that no water would be left in Warragamba Dam. He predicted also that Perth would have to be evacuated because it would run out of water. Of course, these things have not come to pass, clearly demonstrating the efficacy of the models used by global warming alarmists to spread their case. The simple fact is that Warragamba Dam has not run dry, but commensurate with that was a further piece of global warming nonsense that suggested we had to invest in desalination plants because our dams would run dry through lack of normal precipitation. Anyone who has read Dorothea McKellar's My Country realises that this is a land "of droughts and flooding rains".
The Hon. Niall Blair: Keep going.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: There has been a historical trend throughout Australian history, throughout this sunburnt country, this land of sweeping plains, of rugged mountain ranges, with its droughts and flooding rains, its vast horizons and its jewel-sea, this wide brown land for me. The reason we have these 23512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
nonsensical, uneconomical and ridiculous desalination plants along the eastern seaboard is that too many Labor governments believed the lies and the spin that global warming will empty the dams. It has proved to be completely false but, unfortunately, the residual economic cost of those bad decisions remains. Recommendation 4 talks about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I am delighted that the incoming Federal Government has decided to examine that plan because it needs a substantial overhaul. I shall outline the reasons for that a little later. Recommendation 8 deals with a vital component of this report. I note that this recommendation was unanimously agreed upon, as was every recommendation in this report. Regardless of the wide divergence of opinions on this committee, we produced a unanimous report. Recommendation 8 deserves noting:
[we should] amend the principles of the Water Management Act 2000 to ensure that the commercial water supply for towns and utilities and high security needs in regulated rivers are prioritised above environmental needs.
That means humans are more important than reeds—a fairly uncontroversial concept, unless you are in The Greens. The Greens happen to believe that moss and lichen are more important than people in towns in inland New South Wales. The Greens believe that small pesky, furry creatures in waterborne environments are more important than sustaining a living in towns such as Dubbo, Orange, Parkes or Wagga Wagga. These situations all occur because the current environmental needs are prioritised in a way that does not take into account the primacy of man within this environment. The Greens do not recognise that. That is a clear exemplar of how The Greens persistently believe that humanity is some sort of blight upon the landscape; some sort of invasive species that has to be eradicated. Under a Coalition Government we will support men, women and children in inland New South Wales and not prioritise trees and river ferns over human lives.
Recommendation 9 came about startlingly in relation to the Gwydir wetlands—that is, environmental water releases. Under the current system, environmental water releases are in addition to any environmental flows that might exist through natural occurrence. Of course, this leads to massive inundation at the end of watercourses and the consequent economic loss for farmers. The report talks also about augmentation works on the Menindee Lakes. Certainly, in Barren Box Swamp we saw exactly what augmentation works can do to improve retention of water meaningfully and usefully for future uses. I refer now to recommendation 14. I reiterate what earlier speakers have said: historians like history, scientists like science and engineers love engineering stuff. Our current concerns are that perhaps the dam safety committee overspecified the engineering requirements for dams.
I understand why the dam safety committee would be concerned about a one-in-a-one-million-year event, however I note that the longest single continuous civilisation is Chinese, which has existed for only 10,000 human years. So a one-in-a-one-million-year event may not necessarily be considered for design needs. Finally, I refer to recommendation 13: that the Commonwealth Government look to review the lower lakes of the Murray-Darling Basin. If people are interested, I recommend they read Jennifer Marohasy's excellent monograph on the lower lakes, particularly Lake Alexandrina and how, for all of its natural history, it has been an estuarine environment—not freshwater. Lake Alexandrina is an artificial creation that unnaturally takes fresh water from the Murray River system. The booms keep it in an unnatural state and, essentially, it becomes one giant evaporation pond.
That might look nice for South Australians who go there for a holiday or to fish, but it is totally unnatural and ahistorical. I urge the incoming Commonwealth Government to investigate this with a view to returning the lakes to their true natural estuarine state rather than calling on the States up river—particularly New South Wales and our hard-done-by farmers on the Murray and Darling rivers systems—to effectively give up their livelihoods so that South Australians can have a pretty view over Hindmarsh Island. I commend the report. I look forward to the adoption of its recommendations.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.27 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who spoke in this debate, particularly the Hon. Mick Veitch, who is my deputy chair on the committee. He and I worked very well on this committee. We have a similar outlook on what is good for regional development in New South Wales. I thank also the Hon. Walt Secord, the Hon. Paul Green, Dr John Kaye, Mr Scot MacDonald, Dr Mehreen Faruqi and the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps for their contributions. I shall make a couple of comments on some issues. Dr John Kaye commented about big infrastructure projects that look attractive but may not necessarily be in the best interests of the State. While I agree with the broad perspective of that statement, we need to understand that really there are no problems with big infrastructure projects, as long as they generate wealth and income for the nation. 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23513
The construction of dams certainly does that. Dams improve the viability of agricultural regions and certainly generate wealth and income in the longer term, as seen in the Riverina in particular, with the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and other irrigation areas. We must not lose sight of the fact that the agricultural use of water—I refer to comments of Dr Mehreen Faruqi focusing on the human use of water, which I support absolutely—certainly is a human use. It provides us with the basis of our daily food and fibre on which we survive. Let us not forget that while there is a tendency to separate agricultural, environmental and human uses of water, the three are intertwined and cannot be separated. I point out that although this report focuses on other issues, it is not against the construction of new dams.
I reflect on a comment that I made. The beginning of the second decade and new millennium saw the State inundated by floodwater. In 2011-12, over a three-month period, an estimated 6,500 gigalitres of water was flowing through the Menindee Lake Scheme. The ability to capture just 20 per cent of that floodwater would provide extra storage on the Darling system that would be equivalent to the full capacity of Copeton Dam, or 1.5 million megalitres, which would greatly enhance the security of the irrigation industries, environmental flows and water for towns along the system.
We need to have an open mind. The time will come when building new dams will be justified. This committee is a parliamentary committee, not an engineering-based committee, so it did not recommend new dam sites. Much evidence was received, and while some people suggested that all the good dam sites had been taken, other evidence indicated that plenty of good dam sites were left, depending on location and usage. Once again, I thank all the committee participants, Hansard and the staff who assisted us. It is a worthwhile report and I look forward to the Government's response in due course. 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.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Report: Same-sex Marriage Law in New South Wales
Debate resumed from 20 August 2013.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [5.32 p.m.]: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, I am pleased to lead in debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled, "Same-sex Marriage Law in New South Wales", which was tabled in July 2013. I thank my fellow committee members the Hon. Helen Westwood, Deputy Chair, the Hon. Catherine Cusack, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, the Hon. Jan Barham, and the Hon. Natasha McLaren-Jones. At times this inquiry and the subsequent deliberations were an emotional experience for participating members of the committee. It is fair to say that we could not agree on all the issues relating to the deliberations and the final make-up of the report, but generally the deliberations were conducted in a respectful and professional manner. I pay tribute to the secretariat staff, led by Mr Stuart Smith, who worked with our committee for two days during its deliberations and who helped to prepare this report. I pay tribute also to Ms Miriam Cullen, Christine Nguyen and other staff members. On 29 November 2012 Premier Barry O'Farrell issued the following terms of reference:
That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire and report on issues relating to a proposed same sex marriage law in New South Wales, and in particular:
1. Any legal issues surrounding the passing of marriage laws at a State level, including but not limited to:
a. the impact of interaction of such law with the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961;
b. the rights of any party married under such a law in other States' and Federal jurisdiction; and
c. the rights of the parties married under such a law upon dissolution of the marriage;
2. The response of other jurisdictions both in Australia and overseas to demands for marriage equality;
3. Any alternative models of legislation including civil unions; and
4. Changes in social attitudes (if any) to marriage in Australia.
The report was to be tabled on 9 May 2013. As chair of the committee I took the view at the outset that the committee was examining whether the Parliament could, rather than should, legislate for same-sex marriage. 23514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
I believe the debate on whether we should legislate will be had at a later stage, and all members will be given an opportunity to speak in debate on the second reading of the Same-sex Marriage Bill 2013. Last year a motion relating to a similar topic was debated in this House. Some members held the view that the State could not legalise same-sex marriage and there was some confusion about that issue. One of the committee's key objectives was to inquire into whether the State had the power to pass such laws in New South Wales, not whether it should pass such laws in New South Wales. That topic will be debated at a later stage. Therefore, the view of the committee was that it could examine the legal issues surrounding such a law, some of the social attitudes relating to such a law, what other jurisdictions around the world and in other States have experienced and, if it was to pass such a law, how that would interact with other laws, including the Commonwealth Marriage Act.
It is clear that the objective of the committee was to provide a balanced document to members of this House and in the other place, whichwould enable them to have an informed debate concerning same-sex marriage and whether we should consider such an Act in New South Wales. The committee received 7,586 responses to this inquiry. That figure includes all pro forma and unique submissions as well as signatures on petitions. To date it constitutes the largest number of responses ever received by a New South Wales Legislative Council parliamentary committee. That fact was not to be used to sway the debate one way or the other, so the committee did not establish how many of those 7,586 submissions were for same-sex marriage and how many were against it. Although the subject clearly captured the interest of the community, the submissions were used to discuss whether this could be achieved in New South Wales, not to win a numbers debate by establishing how many submissions were for same-sex marriage and how many submissions were against.
I thank all those from both sides of the argument who took the time to provide a submission to the inquiry. Importantly, I thank also those who gave evidence before the inquiry. The evidence given at the public hearings was very valuable, particularly the opinion evidence given by constitutional academics. In general there was a good response from the academics that appeared before the inquiry, although some were in conflict. Similarly, some of the organisations and individuals that appeared before the inquiry were in conflict. I appreciate that at times it was difficult for people to provide their evidence and I thank them all for their contributions.
I turn now to the committee's findings. The committee made four findings: that New South Wales has the constitutional power to legislate on the subject of marriage; should New South Wales choose to exercise this power and enact a law for same-sex marriage, the validity of that law could be subject to challenge in the High Court of Australia; if such a challenge occurs it is uncertain what the outcome of the case would be; and equal marriage rights for all Australians may best be achieved under Commonwealth legislation. On the surface it may not appear that the committee has provided rock-solid recommendations to enable members confidently to say, "The Standing Committee on Social Issues has said this, so we should do that." But it is clear that some key things have come out of this inquiry.
The inquiry addressed the issue of constitutional power. Indeed, we do have the constitutional power to pass such a law in New South Wales. However, the committee could not say, if we chose to do that, whether the law would be valid, because that law may be subject to challenge in the High Court. I encourage members to read the report because it includes a detailed section on a potential High Court challenge relating to a number of issues—for example, whether such a state-based law would be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act; whether the Commonwealth Marriage Act covers the field of same-sex marriage; and whether such a challenge would succeed in the High Court. Obviously the High Court would determine that but the process to be undertaken if such a challenge were to occur has been clearly illustrated in the report.
The committee's fourth finding does not seek to tell members what to do about marriage equality but the report clearly suggests that amending the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 would be the easiest way to achieve that. Obviously there will be arguments for and against marriage equality both in this debate and in debate of the proposed bill to be introduced but I hope that this report will help guide members. I note also that the committee received a submission from the parliamentary working group in relation to a potential bill—it was an early draft of what is currently on the Notice Paper. It was not the committee's role to provide a critique on the proposed bill; it was up to the parliamentary working group to decide what should be included in the bill. The committee was looking only at the specific issues I referred to earlier.
The report is well balanced and members will find that both sides of many arguments are addressed in each chapter. Not everyone will agree with the committee's conclusions—not all committee members agreed with the conclusions in some areas—however, this report will provide an informed opinion to those members in 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23515
both Houses who eventually debate the bill on some of the legal and technical issues that the committee examined. I will not declare my views on this issue until we get to that point. It was not the committee's responsibility to determine whether we should legislate for same-sex marriage in New South Wales; it was more to determine whether we could do that. The committee has done that and I look forward to future debate.
As I have said, this issue is generating a lot of interest nationally and internationally. The committee's deliberations were respectfully conducted. Everyone's opinions were valued, even if we did not agree with them. But in order to reach an outcome, regardless of which side of the debate we are on, we need to listen to what everyone has to say. From time to time during the inquiry my beliefs were either challenged or strongly reiterated. I found it to be a very valuable exercise and I look forward to participating in the debate later this year. I hope other members feel the same way. I again thank all committee members and the secretariat. Once again the Standing Committee on Social Issues has provided an outstanding critique, from which we will all benefit, on a social issue. I look forward to the contributions of other members.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.47 p.m.]: I congratulate the Standing Committee on Social Issues on the thoroughness of its report into same-sex marriage law in New South Wales. This report raises as many questions as it answers about whether the State has the constitutional power to legislate on this subject. I note in particular the argument of the application of more contemporary principles of constitutional interpretation, which see the Constitution as a living document that adapts to societal change. Those who want to move forward will take those arguments on board. Indeed, whether we interpret the Consitution as a living document is a measure of the enlightenment of society.
Although the report leaves many questions unanswered, people will now be able to put their views forward based on the information in the report about the State's legal obligations. For example, one could argue whether the Constitution is definitive as to the marriage of a man and a woman under the Commonwealth Marriage Act or whether, because that has not been constitutionally defined, the State has a right to look at areas outside those considered in that legislation, particularly the 2004 amendments. Approximately 65 per cent of the population supports same-sex marriage while the other 35 per cent holds deep convictions in opposing it. I enjoyed reading the report. It allows for a more enlightened approach to the constitutional amendments. I commend the committee for its work in this extensive report.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [5.49 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens in debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled, "Same-sex Marriage Law in New South Wales". I commend the work of the committee and its diligence in its deliberations which informed this report. I thank the parliamentary secretariat for its incredible efforts during this inquiry. I also thank all those who made submissions to this inquiry—whether they were experts in the area of constitutional and family law or ordinary Australians who want to have their families recognised. The record-breaking number of submissions highlights the importance of this issue to the people of New South Wales, whichever side of the debate they may be on.
The inquiry was the first of its kind in Australia, and an important platform with which to inform the debate on marriage equality, both in our State and other States that are grappling with the task of legislating for marriage equality at a State and Territory level. This report removes any obstacles or doubt that we can achieve constitutionally valid same-sex marriage in New South Wales. There is no uncertainty here. The committee chair, the Hon. Niall Blair, stated:
This Report seeks to clarify the law, including in particular the question as to whether New South Wales can legislate on the topic of same-sex marriage; there is no doubt that it can.
In effect, the report also recognises what The Greens and marriage equality advocates have been saying for years—marriage between two people who love each other is a human right. By denying marriage equality, the State is denying human rights. The report also suggests that the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation "except as provided by the Marriage Act". Can there be any clearer statement that the Marriage Act is discriminatory? We should all be racing to end discrimination against our citizens. This report strengthens our capacity to do this. We do not have to wait for the Federal Government; the State, the people and the Parliament of New South Wales can stop discrimination right now.
In his dissenting statement, the Hon. Greg Donnelly claimed that the Federal Marriage Act is "to the benefit of all Australians". I argue with that and say that it does not benefit same-sex couples, or the friends and families who have to watch their loved ones being denied their human rights. The Hon. Greg Donnelly is not alone in objecting to same-sex marriage in New South Wales. There were many submissions, particularly from 23516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
the religious Right, which condemned any changes to legislation in this area. The arguments were varied in both their nature and accuracy. Some submissions claimed that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, and that the definition has never been and can never be changed.
The recent 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment Bill which legislated the "one man, one woman" definition in the first place is one of the many changes to marriage laws we have seen in Australia. One submission claimed that New South Wales should not legislate for same-sex marriage as "the majority world view of marriage is the commitment to a lifelong union of one man and one woman". While recognition of same-sex marriage is not the global norm, I commend the committee for noting the global shift towards marriage equality, with 17 countries—spanning North America, South America, Europe, Africa and Oceania— legislating for nationwide same-sex marriage in the past 12 years.
Some submissions suggested that the Parliament has the duty to ensure that best-practice marriage— and indeed best-practice parenting—is enshrined in New South Wales law and that that may only be in the form of heterosexual marriage. While there are many contradictory "studies" in this area, the vast body of peer-reviewed research has led the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Psychological Society and the American Academy of Paediatrics to overwhelmingly conclude that the children of same-sex parents develop just as well as their counterparts with heterosexual parents, and that the real measure of good parenting is not the gender, sex, or sexuality of their parents but the extent to which parents care for their children.
Some objecting submissions correctly pointed out that same-sex marriage is not permitted by the heads of the world's major religions. Here I would like to mention a section of the report which quoted a 2011 Galaxy Poll which found that 53 per cent of Christians supported same-sex marriage and that support from people of other religions was as high as 62 per cent. It is likely that this reflects the lived experience of many Australians, whose personal beliefs are not always mirrored by the religious organisations to which they belong. In State and Federal law, marriage is overseen by our secular State; and now we know that the State can legislate in this area. This report does not produce perfect outcomes for advocates of state-based equal marriage. It suggests that we cannot constitutionally recognise marriages conducted overseas. It suggests that we cannot constitutionally recognise the marriages of intersex people whose sex is undefined. It suggests that true marriage equality for all Australians, both those in our State and those outside it, will best be achieved under Commonwealth legislation and changes to the Federal Marriage Act.
As The Greens remain the only Federal political party to endorse marriage equality as a matter of policy—and have voted accordingly every time it has been considered—we may be waiting some time for our Federal Government to act. While we are constitutionally unable to recognise marriages conducted overseas, or the marriages of some intersex people, there are things we can do to remove discrimination. We can stop the cruel divorces forced upon loving married couples by our State's Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act when an individual changes sex. This report from the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues confirms that in the area of same-sex marriage we can also do something. So let me say it again: this is a human rights issue. This is about removing discrimination from the laws of our State. Change on this issue can only come through cross-party support. The Greens have consistently and strongly advocated to remove discrimination and pushed for marriage equality throughout our history; it is time that others did the same. It is time to make marriage equality the law for Australia. Until then, let us make it the law for New South Wales.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.56 p.m.]: I think everyone knows where I stand in relation to this issue: I do not believe marriage should be a government intervention in the first place. But I suspect I am very much in the minority in that regard, not only in this Parliament but also across Australia. My view essentially is that marriage is a private contractual relationship between two consenting individuals and on that basis it should be removed from the imprimatur of government and should just be left to those individuals to establish that relationship. Of course there is a role for government where that contract has not been fulfilled—as there is in any commercial contractual relationship. But, above and beyond that, I see no special reason for prioritising or privileging the marriage contract per se within government statute.
In relation to the submissions, I recommend that, if they do nothing else, people have a look at the submissions from Professor Patrick Parkinson; Professor Anne Twomey, who are brilliant; and Professor Geoffrey Lindell, who I have not previously met but whose submission was really good. I will however say one thing about Professor George Williams, whose submission I found to be, as I scrawled on it when I finished reading it, "A series of undergraduate 'gotchas', weasel words and outright contradictions." Professor Williams is somewhat notorious for being the hired gun for the outer reaches of legal theory—if one wants something prospectively done that does not fit within any mainstream legal theory but could validly be argued if one took a 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23517
whole string of hypotheses, added them together, threw in a bit of fairy dust and stirred gradually. Professor Williams in his submission has, unsurprisingly, had a small go at me. So I intend to use this forum to correct his misapprehension. He says:
For example, the Government whip in the Upper House, Dr Peter Phelps, said in the debate:
Let us be quite clear on this point: the Australian Constitution explicitly reserves the legislative agenda on marriage to the Federal Government.
That is what I said, and so I will explain it in simple terms for the good professor. I am not denying that States have the right to legislate for section 51 powers. I think it is uncontroversial that States have the right to legislate for marriage. Reading through these reports, it is absolutely uncontroversial that States have a right to legislate for marriage—as they do for quarantine, astronomy or any other section 51 powers. The crux lies in whether the Federal Government has covered the field in relation to that legislation.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: But that's not quite what you said.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: In my view the Federal Government has covered the field and I will explain why that is. I feel I can say that the Constitution explicitly reserves the legislative agenda on marriage to the Federal Government because of the fact that there is a Marriage Act. The operation of section 109 in this instance has covered the field in relation to marriage as far as we are concerned. The rest of Professor Williams's paper has something of the quality of a picture of a python swallowing its tail. It contains some very convoluted arguments that essentially come down to the fundamental point he is making: that is, the 2004 enactments of the changes to the Marriage Act have somehow indicated that the Federal Government has decided to vacate the field in relation to marriage. That is not a tenable position as far as I can see. Indeed, I will quote Professor Williams again:
The 2004 changes were effective in limiting the scope of the federal Marriage Act. However, by explicitly and carefully narrowing the scope of that Act to different sex marriage, it also made it clear that the Act covers the field only with respect to those types of marriages.
This outcome is perverse given the intentions of the Prime Minister, but in my view it is the legal consequence of the changes he brought about.
Hence, it is arguable that the Federal Marriage Act covers the field of marriage only insofar as the concept is defined by the Act—that is, between a man and a woman.
I am not the only one who had major concerns about that. In his commentary on Professor Williams, Professor Parkinson said:
I respectfully agree with Prof. Williams that such an outcome would be perverse. I respectfully disagree with him that this argument is tenable with respect to the intentions of Parliament in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. Prof. Williams' argument would require a court to find that it was the intention of Parliament in 2004 that the Marriage Act 1961 should no longer cover the field of the solemnisation of marriages in Australia and that there need no longer be uniform marriage laws for the country.
As we know, the Marriage Act 1961 was established to create a unitary set of rules for marriage across all jurisdictions within Australia. I decided to go back to look at the second reading speech made by Attorney-General Mr Ruddock in 2004. The position was made clear in that speech when he said, "Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." Later, he went on to say:
It is time that those words form the formal definition of marriage in the Marriage Act.
This bill will achieve that result.
Including this definition will remove any lingering concerns people may have that the legal definition of marriage may become eroded by time.
Notice the future tense used by the Attorney-General when he said that the legal definition of marriage may become eroded by time. He went on to say:
The amendments to the Marriage Act contained in this bill will make it absolutely clear that Australia will not recognise same sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country, whatever country that may be.
Attorney-General Ruddock concluded:
It will provide certainty to all Australians about the meaning of marriage into the future.
23518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
With respect to Professor Williams, I do not see how that in any way can be construed as affirmation of the view that the Federal Government has sought to retire voluntarily from the field in relation to marriage. In no way whatsoever can it be construed that way. I will not continue for much longer, except to congratulate the committee and the chair on their excellent work. I hold strong views on this matter. I think we probably can legislate for same-sex marriage in New South Wales, but I feel that it will ultimately be an exercise in futility for the reasons I spoke about tonight. In my opinion, the Federal Government has covered the field in relation to this. In that regard, I will finish on a note of agreement with Professor George Williams when he said that it really should be left up to the Federal Government to make changes to the Marriage Act if same-sex marriage is to be legislated for.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.06 p.m.]: I will speak on Report No. 47 of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled, "Same-sex Marriage Law in New South Wales", dated July 2013. As committee chairman the Hon. Niall Blair said in his remarksthat the committee was not given the charter of debating whether same-sex marriage should be legalised in New South Wales. The question was whether it could it be legalised. The Premier's referral to the Standing Committee on Social Issues was based on the question of the legal position of New South Wales versus the legal position of the Commonwealth of Australia, which up until now has passed marriage laws. The committee was asked to inquire into what would happen if New South Wales passed a same-sex marriage law through both Houses of Parliament. Would it be legal? Would it be challenged in the High Court?
Those issues were the main considerations of the committee and rightly so. However, because of the submissions received, the committee went outside its terms of reference and also canvassed a number of aspects of same-sex marriage including the impact it would have and so on. The committee report contains four findings and does not make any recommendations. The first finding was that New South Wales has the constitutional power to legislate on the subject of marriage. Even though the committee made that finding, committee members knew from the evidence before them that the majority of the most senior legal constitutional experts in Australia did not agree with that statement. For example, a professor of law at the University of Sydney, Professor Patrick Parkinson, said in his submission:
It is probably not possible, for constitutional reasons, to confer upon same sex couples the status of marriage in NSW. This is because there is already a federal law that was intended to create a comprehensive, national uniform law of marriage with which a state-based law would be inconsistent.
As I have learnt over the years and as all members know, State laws cannot be inconsistent with Federal laws. If by some chance we passed a law that was inconsistent with Federal law it would be disallowed and not permitted to operate. That is the point Professor Parkinson is making. He goes on to state:
This proposition seems to have been accepted by those who drafted "same sex marriage" Bills in Tasmania and South Australia. While these Bills purport to allow same sex couples to marry, what they actually do is to create a new kind of status, hitherto unknown anywhere else in the world, called a "same sex marriage" as opposed to being simply a "marriage" between same sex partners.
If NSW were to enact a law on same sex marriage it would almost certainly have to follow the same legislative strategy for constitutional reasons. Any such law concerning "same sex marriage" would create a hybrid status, being a kind of 'marriage' with its own unique set of rules for limited purposes under the law of NSW, and a de facto relationship in federal law and in the law of other states and territories. Under some circumstances it may be neither a marriage nor a de facto relationship in federal law. Such a law would create a status that is different from marriage, rather than allowing a different kind of couple the right to marry.
There is a risk that in enacting a "same sex marriage" law in NSW, people may have expectations that cannot possibly be met. Furthermore, the public will be beset with misunderstandings in an area where there is already confusion enough as a result of the current muddled state of the law on relationships in Australia.
I note in the dissenting statement from the Hon. Greg Donnelly, which the Christian Democratic Party fully supports, he argues strongly that the committee did not give enough weight to submissions such as Professor Parkinson's and other legal authorities. In committees there is always a debate among people with different points of view, but that would appear to me to be the case from the manner in which the committee has compiled its report. I also note that the submission to the committee by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney raises the very important issue of the implications of a legal same-sex marriage in New South Wales. Under the heading "Religious freedom at risk for the people of New South Wales", the submission states at page 7:
Proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that in the event of marriage being redefined, the Catholic Church and other religious communities will be "protected" or "exempted" from being required by law to perform same-sex marriages. Such proposals fail to understand the immensely powerful role of the law in shaping and regulating our society and our culture. An 'exemption' would only apply to religious celebrants, and would offer no legal protection for the vast majority of Catholics and other citizens of New South Wales with a religious and/or conscientiously held belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23519
Legislating for same-sex marriage in New South Wales, regardless of 'exempting' clauses, would pose a grave threat to the human right of religious freedom. It would place at risk the freedom of Catholics and all people in New South Wales who believe that marriage means the complementary love of a man and a woman to express, teach and live publicly by that belief. It would threaten their ability to hold public office and trusted positions in the community, because their belief in marriage would no longer be compatible with the law. Catholics and other faith communities could eventually be compelled to recognise same-sex marriage in their schools, charitable, aged care and adoption services, or suffer the consequences of social and legal exclusion.
We know that in the United States of America, where some States have passed same-sex legislation, it has dramatically affected the religious freedom of many American citizens. It is a fact that in some States there, if a registrar of marriages says, based on his or her beliefs, "I cannot conscientiously register a same-sex marriage", that person is dismissed from his or her position. What appears to be a very simple issue has many ramifications. In all fairness, those who are pursuing same-sex marriage and arguing human rights based on individual freedoms and freedom of choice must consider the implications of their actions as they impact upon the freedom of others, such as those who have different points of view and particularly those who take a religious position.
I commend to members of this House the submission from the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty, which goes into detail on the implications of a same-sex marriage law being passed. I already know that a number of countries have legalised same-sex marriage—someone said a moment ago 17 countries and I thought it was 15, but I know that it sometimes changes among States in the United States of America—but it must be remembered that they are 15 out of 196 nations. The majority of the world's nations are not going down the path towards same-sex marriage laws, certainly not at this stage. I have concerns about the committee's report. [Time expired.]
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.16 p.m.]: Since Professor Parkinson has been cited by two members who preceded me in this debate, I commence my speech on the Standing Committee on Social Issues report, "Same-sex Marriage Law in New South Wales", by noting that on page 18 of Professor Parkinson's submission he states:
What the NSW Parliament can probably do is to create status called a "same sex marriage" which is materially different from marriage. It would not be recognised beyond NSW unless other jurisdictions passed legislation to do so. It would not be recognised as a marriage in federal law or the law of other states. It would have a hybrid status, being a marriage for some purposes under state law, but even under state law, having to be described as a de facto relationship for the purposes of the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2003 (NSW).
I will not cite the remainder of that paragraph, but will move on to the next paragraph, in which Professor Parkinson states, in part:
As I understand it, Prof. George Williams's view is not too different from this. In his paper for the Faculty of Law at the University of Tasmania in August 2012, he expressed the view that "there is no inconsistency between the Federal Marriage Act and a carefully‐drafted State same‐sex marriage law".
Professor Parkinson goes on to state:
I agree with Prof. Williams that such a narrowly drafted law along the lines of the Tasmanian or South Australian Bills, would probably avoid a problem of inconsistency with federal law.
I am careful to recognise that I have cited extracts of what Professor Parkinson has stated, but I make plain that the submission made by the parliamentary working group, which annexed the first draft of our bill, and a further submission made by the parliamentary working party, which submitted a second draft bill in the light of criticisms of a number of academics including Professor Williams, is based upon the proposition that the bill that is being put forward does not run the issue of inconsistency and does not run the issue of, in essence, being an exercise of the marriage power under section 51 because what is sought to be put forward is a same-sex marriage law, which is the creation of a relationship that is different to a marriage under the Federal marriage Act.
I agree with the Hon. Niall Blair. There is no question that the optimal position is for the matter to be passed through the Federal Parliament. However, the question that all of us will have to consider is this: If we accept the proposition that our fellow Australians are entitled to have a legally recognised relationship through a ceremony but the Federal Parliament will not move on the issue, the best and only option is for us to grasp the nettle and to do something here. It is fine to say that it would be better to have the matter resolved in the Federal Parliament and that one day the Federal Parliament will do that. But I say, look into the eyes of your fellow man, your fellow citizen, and say, "It is all right if you wait for another 10 or 20 years to get justice." I cannot do that and I am sure many in this place cannot. It is not the best option, but it is better than nothing—damn well better than nothing. 23520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
Members are receiving a great many emails that speak in terms of the alternatives that are available and of how terrible it will be if marriage equality were to eventuate. Many of those communications suggest that another term apart from "marriage" should be used. The answer to that, in part, comes from Bishop Peter Comensoli who appeared before the committee in opposition to marriage equality. He was asked, "What about civil unions as an option? How would you take that?" Bishop Comensoli was an honest and decent witness of the first order—someone who made a classy submission to the committee. I watched him and I could not feel anything other than that he was a passionate and decent man. What he replied was, "No, we cannot support that because it is too marriage-like." The committee put the same question to the proponents of marriage equality and they responded, "No, because it is not marriage-like enough".
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Create a new name, another name.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: That name was "civil union". Whether it be called "civil union" or "civil partnership", the problem for the church is not in the name, it is the fact that two men or two women would walk down an aisle, hand in hand, stand before a celebrant and get married. Irrespective of whether it is called a Calathumpian union, or anything else—the problem for the church is the act, the recognition that two people of the same sex can walk hand in hand and have a celebration of their union. At the end of the day, that is the problem. The proponents of same-sex marriage say that it is a human right and therefore it has to be called "marriage". I accept that there are arguments for both sides. I would love it if we could all reach a tolerant, agreed position, but it is an almost insurmountable problem that is difficult to overcome. I believe it is the majority view in this House that we must do something that recognises the right of people to come together. I hear a groan but I think the majority position now is—
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: We've got the message as to what you want.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I am pleased that the Hon. Marie Ficarra has got the message because that is what the majority of people are saying.
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: I am not saying I support your message; I have just got it.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I would not anticipate that the Hon. Marie Ficarra would accept it. However, let us work on the basis that the majority of people now recognise that people have a right to move forward in their relationships and do it in a reasonable way. One of the things that people write in the emails we constantly receive about same-sex marriage is that everyone now has equal rights in Australia, so why do we need to go further? There are two things I can say to that. First, to those people who write to me, passionately— almost in a religious fervour—saying that everyone now has equal rights in Australia, I say that in my time in this place, every time a bill has been introduced to recognise the right of a same-sex couple to do something, it has been opposed by religious groups–every time.
Religious groups have never supported the equality of rights for same-sex couples. I find it somewhat galling when they raise the equality of rights issue when every time there has been a request for equality they have resisted it. The final point I make is that there is, in fact, no equality of rights, because there is no opportunity for the ceremonial recognition of a same-sex relationship. Until that occurs one does not have equality. I commend the committee for the quality of its work. No doubt this debate will be ongoing.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.26 p.m.]: I speak on the Standing Committee on Social Issues report on Same-sex Marriage Law in New South Wales. I support marriage equality. It is important to show due respect to all members of our community and we can do that by making sure that we have equality when it comes to these types of issues. The committee's findings are that:
1. The State of New South Wales has the constitutional power to legislate on the subject of marriage;
2. Should New South Wales choose to exercise this power and enact a law for same-sex marriage the validity of that law could be subject to challenge in the High Court of Australia;
3 If such a challenge occurs it is uncertain what the outcome of the case would be; and
4. Equal marriage rights for all Australians may best be achieved under Commonwealth legislation.
I believe that it would be preferable if this issue were dealt with by the Commonwealth and I think the best way that could be done would be to have a conscience vote on the issue by all parties in Federal Parliament. However, given that we are not going to get to that point, based on the track record of the Federal Government 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23521
when in opposition in binding all its members to vote in a particular way, I think it is appropriate that State governments explore this issue to try and see what they can do to provide marriage equality for the people who live within their States. The committee has put together a comprehensive report. It has not made recommendations because it was not asked to do so. However, the finding that the New South Wales Government has the constitutional power to legislate if it chooses to do so is an important one.
If we find there is intransigence at the Federal level and if members of the Federal Coalition Government are not given a conscience vote on this matter, there is the opportunity for New South Wales to take the lead. We already have a bill on the Notice Paper that would achieve marriage equality in New South Wales and if it comes up for debate, I would urge all members to think carefully about it. We can deal with marriage equality in a way that is sensitive to the religious values of organised religions. We must never get to a point where we force members of religions that are not in favour of same-sex marriage to perform marriage ceremonies for people in same-sex relationships. In the same way we tolerate religious differences in many other aspects of our life, we also should be tolerant on this matter. In the same way we extend that value of tolerance to existing religions, it is appropriate also for them to extend tolerance to same-sex couples.
If same-sex couples want to get married, that is fine; but if that church does not want to recognise that relationship or does not want to be involved in marrying couples of the same sex, then I respect the right of those religions to do so. Respect and tolerance is a two-way street. If we are to be tolerant and respectful of religious institutions in this State, they too should also be respectful and tolerant of people who choose to live in New South Wales regardless of their gender, race and religion, irrespective of whom they want to marry as long as they are legally old enough to marry. I appreciate that this is often used as the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument and people who do so really are insulting the intelligence of most people involved in this debate. Nobody is advocating the weird marriage arrangements that some opponents of marriage equality put forward. The committee and the committee secretariat should be commended for producing this well-balanced report.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.
Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [6.32 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
FEDERAL ELECTION 2013
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [6.32 p.m.]: On 7 September the New South Wales Nationals enjoyed huge success at the polls. I am very proud to be part of the hardworking team that saw our numbers in the House of Representatives increase from four to seven, with an increased primary vote in every seat, as well as the re-election of a senator for New South Wales. Special mention must be made of our unsuccessful candidates who worked tirelessly to build their profiles and spread The Nationals message across regional New South Wales. They are Alan Hay in the Senate; Michael Johnsen in Hunter, who recorded a swing of almost 9 per cent against Labor's agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, making Hunter become a marginal seat; Matthew Fraser in Richmond, who recorded the highest primary vote in that seat; and Gary "Angry" Anderson in Throsby, who worked industriously to see a swing of over 5 per cent to The Nationals and double our vote from the last election.
The following members of Parliament were elected for the first time. Dr David Gillespie, a gastroenterologist, who will be a terrific member for Lyne, was elected with a primary vote of over 53 per cent. Kevin Hogan is now the member for Page after fighting a tough battle and toppling the sitting member with a swing of almost 7 per cent towards The Nationals. Barnaby Joyce won the seat of New England with a 29 per cent swing, becoming the first politician in Australian history to move from the Senate to the lower House across State borders without losing the seat. He has since been elected as the Deputy Leader of the Nationals and the Minister for Agriculture.
However, it is just as important to note that these outstanding results could not have been achieved without the strong foundation built by the New South Wales Nationals members of Parliament who worked 23522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
tirelessly in their electorates and in their portfolios through six years in opposition. Mark Coulton in Parkes increased his primary vote to 64 per cent. This is now the strongest Nationals seat in New South Wales with the primary vote up 20 per cent since Mark's election in 2007. He also retained the position of Nationals Whip in Canberra. John Cobb, the member for Calare, increased his primary vote by over 5 per cent—a reflection of his hard work over years as the local member, including the last term when he was the shadow Minister for Agriculture.
Luke Hartsuyker, the member for Cowper is now the Assistant Minister for Employment. Going into the 2010 election, The Nationals had a margin of only 1.24 per cent in Cowper. The electorate now has a margin of almost 18 per cent, thanks to the consistent hard work of Luke and his team. Michael McCormack, the member for Riverina, yesterday was promoted to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Michael's primary vote has increased by a whopping 15 per cent since 2010—testament to his tireless work in his electorate. John Williams was re-elected to the Senate, where he rejoins Senator Fiona Nash, who is newly appointed as the Assistant Minister for Health and Nationals Deputy Senate Leader. Without these strong, hardworking, Nationals members of Parliament and senators, we would not have achieved the outstanding result we did on 7 September.
I address also the so called "country Greens" who often distort statistics and claim that across the State The Greens secure more primary votes than The Nationals. In fact, on 7 September The Nationals secured more than 10 per cent of the statewide primary vote at this election, despite running in only 10 seats. The Greens ran in every New South Wales seat but could not even manage 8 per cent. However, even this statistic is far from accurate. The New South Wales Nationals chose to focus solely on regional and rural seats—the ones we want to represent. We do it well and our constituents have reflected this in their vote. In the seats of Parkes, Calare, Riverina, Cowper, New England, Lyne, Page, Hunter, Richmond and Throsby the average Greens vote was 6.95 per cent. However, across these same 10 seats, the average Nationals primary vote was 47.35 per cent. It could not be clearer who the people of regional New South Wales want to represent them in Federal Parliament.
I take the opportunity to particularly highlight those members in our Federal parliamentary team until the last election. Mark Coulton, Luke Hartsuyker, John Cobb and Michael McCormack, along with our two New South Wales Senators John Williams and Fiona Nash, laid the foundation for this strong result for The Nationals. Their hard work needs to be praised; it provided David Gillespie, Barnaby Joyce and Kevin Hogan with the opportunity to capitalise on it. On behalf of all of us in New South Wales I thank them for their hard work over the past six years in opposition and congratulate them on a well-deserved result.
NURSE TO PATIENT RATIOS
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.37 p.m.]: For nurses and midwives from 14 countries, 17 September is a global day of action when they stand together as part of the newly created Global Nurses United [GNU]. Global Nurses United is committed to standing up against the harmful effects of austerity measures, privatisation and cuts in health care services. Today at lunchtime, the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association held a demonstration outside this Parliament in support of its campaign for equal nurse-to-patient ratios across New South Wales. This demonstration was part of an ongoing campaign being run by the association in pursuit of a policy that would provide extended and improved mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in rural hospitals. The key principle driving this campaign is patient safety as the association believes improving ratios puts patient safety first.
In preparing the proposals, the association invited all members to participate in an online survey and conducted discussion groups and expert reference groups of clinicians to develop and test the draft proposals. It also undertook an extensive literature search of the research on the relationship between the level of nursing staff and improved patient outcomes, and the economic costs and benefits of expanding the current system. Research shows that increasing the nursing hours available to the patient reduces a variety of adverse outcomes, saves money and—most importantly—saves lives. The background to this campaign is that in 2010 New South Wales nurses convinced the then State Labor Government of the need for nurse-to-patient ratios in the public health system. The winning of ratios for major metropolitan hospitals was a great advance for patient care in public hospitals. However, it was not enough.
Both rural and community nurses continue to struggle to keep their patients safe. Areas such as paediatrics and neonatal intensive care have an urgent need to guarantee nurse numbers. New South Wales nurses are now fighting to extend and improve ratios in all these areas. The association strongly believes country people are entitled to health care as good as that delivered to patients in metropolitan areas, particularly when it 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23523
comes to nursing care that can be delivered where medical and other health support is in short supply. One would think that Nationals members of Parliament would be fighting tooth and nail to get a better health deal for their country areas. Instead, they are rolling over to their Government's spin that people in rural New South Wales do not need safer patient care delivered by better nursing hours or ratios.
Nurses and midwives were prominent and vocal outside the 2013 New South Wales National Party conference held in Bathurst on Friday 14 June and Saturday 15 June. It would be reasonable to think that The Nationals would be a natural ally of nurses in this campaign. Sadly, the response that nurses received from Nationals members of Parliament at their conference was far from impressive. In Bathurst there were nursing and midwifery representatives from 16 of the then 19 Nationals-held State electorates, each keen to brief their local member of Parliament on the issues and developments in the campaign. Formal invitations to a briefing were issued to the 16 members of Parliament, but only three responded. Andrew Fraser stopped to talk to his constituent but later went on radio to say that the whole campaign was about union bosses wanting a conflict with the State Government. The July issue of The Lamp, the Nurses and Midwives Association magazine, states:
There were many grassroots party members at the conference who were effusive in their praise for what the nurses are trying to achieve and who pledged their support.
But they were the victims of wilful deception by their party leadership when the issue was discussed at the conference. Party leaders such as Andrew Stoner and Melinda Pavey (the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health) continue to peddle inaccurate information about our campaign and the state of nurse numbers in New South Wales.
The National Party and the government continue to claim credit for recruiting 4000 nurses since the election. This is disingenuous. When pressed this 4000 becomes 2,700 Full Time Equivalents. Of these, 1580 of the 2700 nurses were won by the NSWNMA's 2010 campaign, which was signed off by the previous Labor Government.
In an information sheet presented at the conference Melinda Pavey used the failure of the previous Labor government to agree to nurse-to-patient ratios in community nursing, emergency departments OR a further increase in clinical Nurse Educators as an excuse for the current state government not to agree to improved patient safety.
Furthermore the National Party and the government criticise Labor for not signing up for ratios and claim that "ratios" do not apply in the NSW Health System. This is bizarre and patently false. The previous government did sign up to ratios, albeit after a tough campaign waged by this union.
On 24 July, as part of this campaign, NSW Nurses and Midwives Association members went on strike over the O'Farrell Government's failure to improve and extend ratios. Thousands of nurses from 180 New South Wales hospitals voted during the statewide strike to launch a fresh round of industrial action in their fight for patient-staff ratios. On 24 July, Brett Holmes, the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association Secretary, addressed hundreds of nurses in Western Sydney and said:
We will never willingly walk away from outpatients but this State Government has left us nowhere else to turn. So far the O'Farrell Government hasn't given an inch.
Today Brett Holmes was presented with a petition of approximately 100,000 signatures calling for the O'Farrell-Stoner Government to put patient safety first and to provide rural hospital patients with the same hours of care as patients in metropolitan areas. I commend the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association for their campaign and call on this Government to act now on ratios and to put patient safety first.
FIELD AND GAME AUSTRALIA
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.42 p.m.]: Tonight I speak briefly about animal welfare and the changes that have occurred to animal welfare bodies in recent years. We all remember the days when the RSPCA was revered for its efforts in looking after lost dogs and cats and animals that had been ill-treated. There was not a person in this country that had a bad word to say about the society, and every year during their appeal people were happy to donate to their fundraising efforts. But for some reason the RSPCA became political, perhaps after being infiltrated by animal rights extremists. Some years ago, I recall Dr Hugh Wirth, the Australian president, making claims about that issue.
I am not the only one concerned about the RSPCA morphing from a once-honourable society into an animal welfare group that is a mouthpiece for various political animal rights groups. There is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights, but one would not think so when hearing comments made by representatives of animal rights groups, including the RSPCA. Tonight, I speak in support of Field and Game Australia, which is an exemplar organisation that is involved in conservation and animal welfare. Bill Paterson, its chairman, has decided to take up the fight on behalf of hunters and shooters who he describes as the most 23524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
regulated outdoor recreationalists in Australia, and he is right. In the first edition of their new biannual publication, Conservation and Hunting, he points out that virtually every aspect of hunting and shooting—from the type of equipment used through to accessing public land to hunt—is the subject of government regulation.
Field and Game Australia has decided to issue the publication because of the enormous challenges it faces in representing its members, hunters and clay target shooters. Mr Paterson says that the challenge posed by regulation is heightened by the limited resources available to discharge regulatory responsibilities, particularly when compared with the resources of animal liberation statutory organisations, such as the RSPCA and the NSW Animal Welfare League. There are other non-statutory bodies that are nonetheless well-heeled such as Animals Australia, Animal Liberation Victoria, Voiceless and Humane Society International, and environment groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Field and Game Australia has decided that regardless of its limited resources, it will try to inform a broader audience about the challenges that face hunters and shooters, the impact of excessive regulation on them, and the scope of activities that hunters and shooters undertake, particularly conservation. Mr Paterson points out that these activities range from Field and Game Australia wetland habitat restoration projects—such as the Heart Morass near Sale in Victoria, which is believed to be the largest private project of its kind in Australia that has been undertaken without any government support—through to game management and pest control programs, which provide the Victorian Government with a cost-effective way of dealing with these issues. It is a little bit like the Game Council in New South Wales.
The publication points out that the RSPCA in Australia is a private body and increasingly appears to be just another animal rights lobby group, which also provides animal welfare services and runs commercial businesses, such as allowing the use of its name to endorse free-range products—for a substantial fee of course. That is a neat trick. Its members also take cameras into raids, which is an arrangement it has with a particular television production company. Unlike in the United Kingdom and most other parts of the world, it also has the power to enter private property and to prosecute pet owners. The society is probably the only private organisation with these powers, which were given to it in the days when it was solely an animal welfare organisation.
In the latest Field and Game Australia publication it was revealed that the RSPCA wants to shut down cattle saleyards, because it does not support the sale of cattle consigned through saleyards. The society was also apparently involved in the investigation into the treatment of animals in Indonesian abattoirs that led to Canberra suspending the live animal trade, from which our cattle industry has still not recovered and may not do so for some time. Live exports are not its only target. It wants to shut down jumps racing and ban the use of whips in horseracing, and it has argued that the use of foster mares by the thoroughbred racing industry be discontinued other than to raise an orphaned or rejected foal. I am interested to know how many of those who make bequests to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals know about its transformation from a well-regarded animal welfare group into an animal rights political lobby group. In conclusion, I agree with the summation of Field and Game Australia that, "The RSPCA has moved a long way from its noble beginnings. For many of us, it has moved too far."
MULTICULTURAL MEDIA AWARDS
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [6.47 p.m.]: On 2 September 2013 the second Multicultural Media Awards presentation dinner was held at the New South Wales Parliament. It was a great night celebrating multicultural and Indigenous media as ambassadors of a harmonious multicultural, multifaith and multilingual Australia. It was a successful night of tributes to migrant and Indigenous journalists who have worked tirelessly with little recognition. It was well attended by a host of multicultural and Indigenous media representatives from across the country. Many distinguished Indigenous and foreign dignitaries and parliamentary colleagues joined the celebration, including the Hon. Linda Burney, the Hon. Luke Foley, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. Greg Donnelly and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. I am indebted to them and to the keynote speakers: the Hon. Tony Burke, Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy, Indigenous elder Brian Butler, and the master of ceremonies, Ms Yalda Hakim from BBC World News. Unfortunately, for the second consecutive year Premier Barry O'Farrell declined the invitation.
The Multicultural Media Awards are a celebration of those who have never been recognised and I repeat what I said on the night: For me, the idea of having the Multicultural Media Awards was simple, but long overdue. In 165 years of multicultural and Indigenous media, there had never been a specific event acknowledging the achievements of the talented migrant and Indigenous journalists who had been serving their 17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23525
communities through multicultural media. Historically, ethnic media were not trusted. In fact, restrictions and government controls were imposed that required publishers to seek special permits from the Department of Immigration, to print at least 25 per cent of the text in the English language, and to forward a copy of every publication to the Commonwealth Investigative Service. Until 1955 the foreign language press, as it was called, was viewed with suspicion and some thought it served as a hindrance rather than a help in assimilation. Today the foreign language press and multicultural and Indigenous media and their journalists have the capacity to bring news to every household as never before.
Indigenous media has developed from its grassroots origins to staking a hold in the mainstream while retaining its authenticity. Multiple voices are growing in Indigenous-specific news media and free-to-air 24/7 National Indigenous Television. Last year, the National Indigenous Times became the first weekly Indigenous newspaper. The Koori Mail is another prolific Indigenous newspaper and the National Indigenous Radio Service has 180 radio stations. Today there are more than 100 Indigenous-specific news media formats in Australia. The empowerment of Indigenous print media, broadcast and other news formats is informing the national consciousness, engaging the highest public institutions in our nation and, more importantly, has highlighted issues long untold and long unheard, and therefore this goes to the heart of improving the wellbeing of peoples.
I congratulate all participants in the Multicultural Media Awards, in particular: Mr Gerry Georgatos, Multicultural Journalist of the Year—The Stringer, National Indigenous Times; Linna Lee, coverage of community affairs in Australia—Korean, TOP Media; Pawan and Rajni Luthra, coverage of community affairs abroad—Indian Link; Oi Ling Jojo Lee, Multicultural Photographer of the Year—Sing Tao Daily; Steve Giannakouras, online coverage of multicultural community affairs—mycities.com.au; Helen Velissaris, feature writing—Greek, Neos Kosmos; Wing Yam Lee, news reporting—Sing Tao Daily; Patrick Zhu, editorial reporting—Oursteps; Jan Smith, contribution to social inclusion and multiculturalism—3ZZZ Radio; Gerry Georgatos, coverage of indigenous affairs—The Stringer; Gerry Georgatos, investigative reporting— The Stringer; Pawan and Rajni Luthra, online innovation of news blog or news website design—Indian Link; Joel Mapayo, editorial cartoon—Philippine Times; and my special Hall of Fame Award went to Syed Zafar Hussain Shah, Sade-e-Watan, for 20 years of dedicated community service.
My special thanks go to the judging committee for their support and, more importantly, their decision-making: Professor Duncan Ivison, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Sydney; Professor John Simons, Executive Dean, Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University; Professor Lynette Sheridan Burns, Deputy Dean, Humanities and Communication Arts, University of Western Sydney; Dr Rick Flowers, head of the Adult Education Program and Postgraduate Programs, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney; Mrs Majida Abboud Saab, journalist and former Director, SBS Radio Arabic Programming; Ms Cathy Craigie, freelance consultant and Executive Director, First Nations Australia Writers Network; Dr Zoran Becvarovski, ear, balance, facial nerve, nose and throat disorder specialist; and Dr Fawzy Soliman, senior academic supervisor, University of Technology Sydney.
My special thanks go also to our sponsors: Ayers Alliance, Arab Bank Australia, Ella Rouge Beauty, Nimco Foods, National Indigenous Times and MyHouse. I also thank Mr Louay Moustapha and Ms Aisha Amjad of my staff for their support. In closing, in view of the fantastic participation of Indigenous media in these awards, and as chair of the Multicultural Media Awards, I am proud to announce that I have decided to change the name to the 2014 Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards.
ALCOHOL-RELATED VIOLENCE
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [6.52 p.m.]: I was a panel participant at a forum held on Australia Day that spoke to a crowded Byron Bay community centre about the concerns of local residents after a summer of unacceptable alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour. A group was formed to undertake research at that forum. That group took six months to gather information from other locations, including Newcastle, identified relevant research and considered legal, medical and social issues. The group named its campaign, "Last Drinks at 12". It has developed a website and a Twitter account, undertaken a media campaign and held a public forum last month. Its mission statement is:
To reduce alcohol-related violence, sexual health, antisocial behaviour and youth binge drinking by engaging the Byron community to take effective action to tackle a serious social crisis.
It has been identified that alcohol-related violence and associated harms are severely damaging our young people, community and the lifestyle we love. We are facing a problem that is changing the very nature of our town. Ugly drunken brawls have become a constant feature of weekend nights. People are seriously hurt, sexual assaults regularly occur and older residents, some who've lived here all their lives, are afraid to go into town on weekend nights.
23526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The statistics tell a terrible story: Byron Bay is the third most violent a place in New South Wales as far as alcohol-related street violence is concerned. The number of assaults is three times the State average. The number of young women being sexually assaulted is double the average. People are having their young lives ruined by actual and feared violence, injury and criminal convictions.
At the heart of the problem is the dangerous oversupply and availability of alcohol in the early hours of the morning and the lack of effective deterrents. We're not talking about the responsible sale, supply and promotion of alcohol or people responsibly enjoying a few drinks and having fun.
What we're witnessing is a culture of pre-loading, binge drinking and high levels of intoxication underpinned by the clear failure of legal Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) obligations by a small number of licensed premises. The all too predictable extreme levels of intoxication result in injury, vandalism and crime. Our town has become hostage to and disgraced by our primarily preventable wave of alcohol-fuelled harms.
The group has identified the Byron solution as:
Our goal is for our town to go from having one of the HIGHEST levels of alcohol related crime and violence in the State to one of the LOWEST.
We want to achieve this through proven PREVENTATIVE MEASURES based on EVIDENCE BASED RESEARCH which are legally ENFORCEABLE, in a way that can be SUSTAINED and we want to DO IT NOW. The violence has gone on for too long.
The group has proposed:
1. Reduction in late night trading hours
A modest reduction in late 19 hours till 12 am will have a substantial impact in reducing alcohol fuelled violence … The majority of the violence occurs in Byron CBD between midnight and 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights …
2. Formation of a Byron Bay Precinct Liquor Accord (PLA)
PLA's membership is compulsory for all late-night trading venues in the Precinct. Other participants in PLA's include other late-night trading businesses, local Council, police, government agencies and community representatives. Local Liquor Accords with their voluntary membership still exist and have an ongoing relationship with PLA's.
3. Freeze on Extended Trading Liquor Licences
No more extended trading liquor licences to be issued in Byron Bay.
I put this on the record because it is important that the Parliament is aware of the community's commitment to return their town to a safe environment. It is worth noting also that voluntary measures have been undertaken by licensed establishments after the initial response and recognised policing concerns. Meetings were initiated by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing and on 21 March a six-month trial of undertakings was signed off by the Byron Bay Liquor Accord. Unfortunately, it has recently been made public that a Byron Bay nightclub was found to be in breach of five of the 10 voluntary guidelines agreed to by the Byron Bay Liquor Accord after undercover agents from the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing visited the venue less than a fortnight after the agreement was signed. If the nightclub is found to be in breach again, its licensee could be fined up to $11,000 or face a 12-month jail term.
Paul Newson, Director of Compliance, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, said that the failure of Lala Land to abide by the trial conditions of the Byron Bay Liquor Accord, as agreed in writing, "demonstrates a lack of commitment to contribute to reducing the risk of alcohol-related harm in Byron Bay." Mr Newson said that the conditions imposed on Lala Land's licence should send a clear message to the licensee and other industry members that if voluntary steps are not taken to protect the community from alcohol-related harm or are disregarded, then mandatory measures may be imposed on venues under the Act. Recently the manager of Aquarius Backpackers in Byron Bay was convicted and fined $7,000 for illegally serving alcohol to people not staying or eating at that establishment—the incident occurred on 8 June. This matter illustrates the difficulties for communities when government does not ensure mandatory controls on licensed premises to protect community interest, rather than commercial interest.
FOREIGN AID POLICY
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.57 p.m.]: The announcement by the Federal Coalition during the recent election campaign that once in government it would reduce foreign aid spending by $4.5 billion will be warmly welcomed by the great majority of Australians. In explaining the policy Coalition spokesman Andrew Robb said:
The bottom line is we are currently borrowing from overseas countries, paying interest on that money and now giving it back. We're in debt. We're in deficit. It's stupid.
17 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23527
He said further:
The best thing to do is spend that $4.5 billion on economic infrastructure so that we can afford a sustainable surplus and then we can make decisions about looking after the world's poor with a sustainable position.
How right the Coalition is. In fact, it is time that the whole issue of foreign aid was revisited because there is overwhelming evidence that a significant portion of foreign aid is wasted or diverted into the pockets of overseas dictators, politicians and racketeers. Whilst Australian families have had to tighten their belts because of the economic downturn, Labor was hell-bent on giving away ever mounting levels of foreign aid. In 2012, despite cutbacks in expenditure, Labor increased foreign aid by 9.1 per cent and in 2013-14 it was set to reach a record $5.7 billion—up from $4 billion in 2008. But even that was not enough. Kevin Rudd announced that he intended to more than double foreign aid from $4 billion in 2008 to $8.5 billion by 2015.
It is not only the escalating size of the foreign aid budget in these times of economic belt tightening and national budgetary constraints that should be of concern, but also how foreign aid is being dispensed and for what purposes. Why, for example, did Labor provide $119 million in 2010-11 for communist Vietnam, a non-democratic one-party regime with an appalling human rights record? Why would we provide foreign aid to a regime that can afford to maintain one of the world's largest armies and spend massively on its military at a time when we are struggling to maintain our own very modest defence capability? Why was it that Kevin Rudd as foreign Minister provided $30 million in foreign aid to oil-rich Libya?
Then there is the issue of the theft of Australia's foreign aid overseas. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph in March 2011 by its national political correspondent, Steve Lewis, Australia's foreign aid program is plagued by record levels of fraud, with millions of dollars being stolen by corrupt officials and organisations overseas. Documents released under freedom of information expose a criminal trail in some of the world's poorest countries, with the widespread theft of money and forgery of receipts. It revealed that AusAID has 175 cases of fraud under investigation stretching across 27 countries. Cases include food supplies being diverted to the black market, including even by the Government of Eritrea. According to the Daily Telegraph article, Papua New Guinea is known as "corruption central", with 71 cases of fraud identified involving 40 per cent of AusAID's budget to that country. Also identified were 31 cases in Indonesia, 20 in the Philippines and 19 in the Solomon Islands.
These scams and rackets are not just restricted to Australian foreign aid; it is a worldwide issue. Recently a United Nations Security Council report identified that half of the United Nation's food aid to Somalia is diverted from the poor to a web of corrupt officials, including United Nations staff and radical Islamists. A report by a leading university in Bangladesh claimed that at least 75 per cent of all foreign aid to that country was lost because of corruption. There is a growing view, and to my mind a correct one, that foreign aid programs need to radically change direction. In many instances they do not solve problems but are the problem. Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian critic of foreign aid, in a book entitled Dead Aid: Why Aid is not Working and How There is a better Way for Africa, argues that foreign aid entrenches tyrannical governments and perpetuates cycles of poverty. This view is shared by Kenyan foreign aid expert and critic James Shikwati.
Australian economist Professor Helen Hughes maintained that many aid programs have no effect other than to be responsible for feel-good television. She points to studies that show that foreign aid flows tend not to increase investment or reduce poverty but add to the problem by increasing inefficient government sectors. The Daily Telegraph was dead right when in an editorial a while back it called for an official inquiry into the foreign aid fiasco. It stated:
We need to know precisely how much of Australia's generosity has been exploited …
It said that the waste and theft was hugely unfair to Australian taxpayers, whose earnings are being appropriated by corrupt overseas agencies, seedy Third World scam artists and shadowy conmen. An official inquiry is a great idea. It could add to its terms of reference not only an investigation into the scams and rip-offs but also whether the current scheme might well be counterproductive because it entrenches corrupt governments rather than creating an environment of investment, self-help, employment and the fundamentals of a free enterprise society—which, at the end of the day, is the permanent pathway to economic prosperity. 23528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 September 2013
The inquiry could also encompass a comparison of aid administered by government agencies as opposed to the non-government sector, particularly faith-based organisations. I believe that there would be no contest. I believe that the evidence would be overwhelming. I believe that the programs administered and formulated by the non-government sector would win hands down, and it is that issue that I intend to return to in the near future.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.02 p.m. until Wednesday 18 September 2013 at 11.00 a.m.
______