13585
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 14 August 2012
______
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:
Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012 Appropriation Bill 2012 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill 2012 State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2012 City of Sydney Amendment (Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee) Bill 2012 Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012 Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2012 Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012 Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012 Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012
WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.
DEATH OF THE HON. ROBERT BARON ROWLAND SMITH, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND MINISTER OF THE CROWN
The PRESIDENT: I announce the death on 29 June 2012 of the Hon. Robert Baron Rowland Smith, aged 86 years, a member of the Legislative Council from 1974 to 1994. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.
CLERK ASSISTANT—COMMITTEES
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that consequent upon the appointment of Ms Julie Langsworth as the Deputy Executive Manager and Director of the People and Engagement Branch of the Department of Parliamentary Services and following recruitment action earlier this year, I approved the appointment of Ms Beverly Duffy as Clerk Assistant—Committees.
PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARIAN
DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES BRANCH
The PRESIDENT: I announce that within the Department of Parliamentary Services Ms Annette McNicol has been appointed Parliamentary Librarian, effective from 9 July 2012, and that Mr John Gregor has been appointed Director of Finance, Financial Services Branch, effective from 18 July 2012.
13586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
OMBUDSMAN
Reports
The President tabled, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1974, the following reports:
1. Special Report entitled "Safe as houses? Management of asbestos in Police buildings", dated July 2012
2. Special Report entitled "Managing use of force in prisons: the need for better policy and practice", dated July 2012.
The President announced that under the Act the reports were authorised to be made public on 26 July 2012.
Reports ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER
Report
The PRESIDENT: According to the terms of the agreement made with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, I table the annual report of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser for the year ended 30 June 2012.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
CHINESE LANGUAGE EDUCATION AWARDS
Motion by the Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) 39 outstanding Chinese language teachers in the Australian Chinese community have recently received the Award of Excellence, the Award of Outstanding Contribution and the Award of Life Achievement from Mr Duan Jielong, Consul General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney on behalf of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of China State Council, and the awards were presented at the 2012 Chinese Language Education Forum jointly held by the Consulate General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney and Australian Chinese Language Schools Association Inc.,
(b) meanwhile, the plaques of the Exemplary School of Chinese Language Education have been awarded to each of the three Chinese language schools, including Sydney Chinese Language School, Datong Chinese Language School (Ashfield) and Fenghua Chinese Language School,
(c) the 39 award-winning teachers are from various Chinese language schools with diversity in Sydney, including the schools teaching simplified Chinese characters and the schools teaching traditional Chinese characters, the schools teaching Mandarin and the schools teaching Cantonese dialect, and
(d) the 39 award-winning teachers in three categories of the awards include:
(i) Mr Howard Wong, winner of The Award of Life Achievement for participation in Chinese language education over 30 years,
(ii) nine winners of the Award of Outstanding Contribution for participation in Chinese language education over 20 years: Jin Zhang, Xuefeng Zhang, Feng Chen, Li Yin, Guoji Liang, Yanfang Liu, Yanzhen Liu, Sio Ching Tang, Yuk Si Yuen,
(iii) 29 winners of the Award of Excellence for participation in Chinese language education over 10 years: Hu Liping, Jingliang Wu, Xiong Zhaoying, Runlian Fan, Lianyang Yu, Li Xu, Huiping Miao, Juan Chang, Na Zhao, Lizhu Luo, Christine McDonald, Ying Zhang, Jun Rong, Wu Chen, Jingping Yan, Yi Xu, Jinwei Li, Xuehua Fan, Wanxian Chen, Caifeng Tan, Yingying Li, Jing Xiao, Chuqin Huang, Yanjiao Tang, Huiping He, Junling Tao, Jingyi Li, Fangfang Lan and Xiumei Shi.
2. That this House congratulates all winners of Chinese language education awards for their contribution to Australia in preserving the heritage of language and culture.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13587
RED NOSE DAY
Motion by the Hon. SARAH MITCHELL agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) Red Nose Day will be held on Friday 29 June 2012,
(b) this year's event will mark 25 years of Red Nose Day in Australia,
(c) Red Nose Day is the major fundraiser for SIDS and Kids, an organisation which is dedicated to saving the lives of babies and children during pregnancy, birth, infancy and childhood and also provides bereavement support for individuals and families who experience the death of their baby, and
(d) funds raised through Red Nose Day activities will assist SIDS and Kids in continuing to provide vital services and programs across Australia.
2. That this House congratulates SIDS and Kids on the Red Nose Day initiative.
TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED
The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a list of all papers tabled since 12 June 2012 and not ordered to be printed.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps tabled a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest 21/55", dated 14 August 2012.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the Performance Audit Report entitled, "Improving the literacy of Aboriginal students in NSW public schools— Department of Education and Communities", dated August 2012, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 8 August 2012.
BUDGET FINANCES 2012-2013
Production of Documents: Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 13 June 2012, documents relating to an order for papers regarding the 2012-2013 budget finances received on 27 June 2012 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents.
Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege
The Clerk tabled a return identifying those of the documents that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. The Clerk advised that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
BUDGET 2012-2013
Production of Documents: Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 13 June 2012, documents relating to an order for papers regarding the 2012-2013 budget received on 27 June 2012 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents. 13588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
PETITIONS
Religious Discrimination
Petition supporting the proposition that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 be amended to include religion as a grounds of discrimination, and requesting that the House support the amendment to the Act to make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or absence of religious belief, received from the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane.
Game Council New South Wales
Petition stating that the Game Council New South Wales receives public funding to promote recreational hunting and requesting that the House abolish the Game Council New South Wales and legislate to permanently end recreational hunting on public land, received from Mr David Shoebridge.
Tweed Heads Policing
Petition stating the need to maintain current policing services in Tweed Heads and requesting the retention of 24-hour police services at Tweed Heads Police Station, received from the Hon. Walt Secord.
Hunting on Public Land
Petition noting a proposal to allow children as young as 12 to hunt animals on public land and requesting that the House condemn a proposal allowing children to hunt unsupervised on public land in New South Wales as reckless and dangerous and disallow regulations in relation to such a proposal, received from Mr David Shoebridge.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business item No. 786 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Dr John Kaye.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLOSURE OF THE CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
Membership and Deputy Chair
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk received the following nominations for membership of the Select Committee on the Closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence:
Government members: Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Ms Ficarra
Opposition members: Mr Veitch Mr Whan
I inform the House that at a meeting held on 29 June 2012 Ms Ficarra was elected Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on the Closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence. I further inform the House that on 2 July 2012 the Clerk received advice that Mr Clarke replaced Mr Ajaka as a Government member on the committee.
INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES BILL 2012
Second Reading
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.09 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government is pleased to introduce the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. This bill is to establish the Inspector of Custodial Services. The proposal in this bill will implement a Government election 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13589
commitment, and follows the recommendation of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 Inquiry into the Privatisation of Prisons and Prison-related Services in June 2009. By improving the standards within correctional facilities we are improving the prospects of rehabilitation of offenders. If offenders are properly rehabilitated they can become productive, law-abiding members of society on their release. Therefore, by improving standards within correctional facilities we are improving the safety of the community as a whole.
The inspector will be an independent statutory role that provides external scrutiny of the standards and operational practices of custodial services in New South Wales. The inspector will provide an independent mechanism for monitoring broader thematic and systemic issues arising out of inspections of adult and juvenile correctional facilities and services. It is not appropriate, if it ever was, that agencies that provide adult and juvenile correctional services oversee themselves. The previous Inspector-General of Corrective Services in New South Wales was dissolved in 2003 after the then Government accepted the recommendations of a five-year statutory review of the office. That statutory review found that there was significant duplication between the Inspector-General and the Ombudsman, as both organisations dealt with complaints of inmates.
However, in June 2009, the General Purpose Standing Committee of the Legislative Council of the New South Wales Parliament handed down its report on its Inquiry into the Privatisation of Prisons and Prison-related Services. The inquiry noted that other jurisdictions, including England, Scotland, Wales and Western Australia, have established independent prisons inspectorates. The inquiry noted that the Corrections Inspectorate was still part of the then Department of Corrective Services, and therefore lacked independence from the department. The inquiry received submissions that New South Wales did not have appropriate prison visitors who are outside the control of Corrective Services, that their role had been "watered down", and that they "could not be autonomous from the department in trying to solve issues". Therefore, the inquiry recommended that the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons.
The previous Government did not support this recommendation and referred to the findings of the 2003 statutory review. The previous Government's response noted that Corrective Services had established a Corrective Services support line—which is a free telephone service for inmates for inquiries and complaints— and appointed monitors to a number of State-operated correctional centres. The response noted the direction of the Commissioner of Corrective Services regarding the appointment of monitors with regard to contracted services in a number of State-operated correctional centres. However, these initiatives are internal arrangements, rather than providing a measure of external scrutiny. Inspections under the authority of the inspector will add external scrutiny and weight due to its status as an independent statutory authority.
The inspector will take a proactive, rather than a reactive, approach to improving custodial services. Rather than simply react to individual incidents after they occur, the inspector will regularly inspect and report on all correctional facilities. Therefore, the inspector will be able to nip in the bud potential problems before they become major issues. In contrast, the previous Inspector-General only ever reported on comprehensive inspections of two correctional centres during its existence. In order to avoid the duplication that was identified between the previous Inspector-General's role and that of the Ombudsman, the proposed inspector's role will not extend to dealing with complaints or grievances relating to an individual in a custodial service. The inspector may refer such complaints to other appropriate bodies, such as the Ombudsman's office. Rather, the inspector will take a holistic approach, focusing on systemic issues in correctional facilities in order to bring about real change.
The administration of the Official Visitors program will also be transferred from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector. This is essential for ensuring the independence of the Official Visitors program in light of the findings of the 2009 inquiry. Official visitors will continue to be appointed by the Minister. Official visitors will provide all reports to the inspector, as well as continuing to provide those reports to the Minister and Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice, as appropriate, who may comment on those reports.
I now turn to the detail of the inspector's role. The inspector will have jurisdiction over all correctional facilities in New South Wales. This will include all adult and juvenile correctional centres, residential facilities, transitional centres, juvenile justice centres, and court and police cells that are managed by Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. The inspector's role will be to inspect and report to Parliament on each adult correctional facility at least once every five years. The inspector must also inspect and report to Parliament on each juvenile justice and juvenile correctional facility at least once every three years. The shorter time frame in relation to juvenile facilities recognises the greater need for protection of juveniles. Of course, the inspector may also inspect and report on such facilities at any time, with or without notice, should the need arise. This allows the inspector to focus on areas of real and immediate concern. 13590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The inspector may also examine and review any "custodial service" at any time. The term "custodial service" is defined broadly and includes the management of custodial centres, the care of inmates, and the transport of inmates by Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. This provides the inspector with the ability to perform thematic reviews of custodial services generally or in relation to a particular correctional facility. The inspector may report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the inspector if, in the inspector's opinion, it is in the interests of any person or in the public interest to do so. This gives the inspector the power to report to Parliament immediately without a full investigation and review, if necessary.
The inspector must also report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the inspector if requested to do so by the Minister. The inspector must also prepare an annual report within four months of the end of each financial year, detailing the inspector's activities in the preceding year, an evaluation of the responses of relevant authorities to its recommendations, and any recommendations for legislative or administrative action. The inspector will be given broad powers in order to perform his or her functions. The inspector will be entitled to full access to the records of any custodial centre, including health records, and to take or have copies made of any of them.
The inspector may visit and examine any custodial centre at any time the inspector thinks fit. The inspector may require custodial centre staff members to supply information or to produce documents concerning a custodial centre's operations. The inspector may require custodial centre staff members to attend before the inspector to answer questions or to produce documents relating to the custodial centre's operations. The inspector may refer matters relating to a custodial centre to other appropriate agencies for consideration or action. For example, if the inspector receives a complaint from an inmate, the inspector may refer that complaint to the Ombudsman's office. The inspector is entitled to be given access to persons in custody, detained or residing at any custodial centre for the purpose of communicating with them.
The Minister must refer reports produced following a special inquiry under section 230 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to the inspector for comment. It will be an offence for a person to obstruct, threaten or fail to comply with a lawful requirement of the inspector or a member of staff of the inspector in the exercise of their functions without reasonable excuse. It will also be an offence for a person wilfully to make any false statement or to mislead the inspector or a member of staff of the inspector in the exercise of their functions.
Furthermore, it will be an offence for a person to take or threaten to take detrimental action against another person because that person provides or proposes to provide information, documents or evidence to the inspector. These offences will carry a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months or both. Information held by the inspector in relation to the inspector's investigative and reporting functions will be designated to be excluded information in schedule 2 to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. This means that a person cannot obtain information from the inspector relating to the inspector's investigative and reporting functions through an application for access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. This will ensure that confidential information retained by the inspector is protected.
Similar exclusions exist in relation to information retained by the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The inspector and the Ombudsman may enter into arrangements regarding any areas of potential overlap between their functions. The inspector and the Ombudsman may also share information obtained in discharging their functions. However, information may not be shared if it could not otherwise be disclosed or obtained by the inspector or the Ombudsman under their respective legislation. This will ensure that the inspector and the Ombudsman are able to assist each other and it will minimise any potential for duplication of their functions.
The inspector will have a duty to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption any matter that the inspector suspects on reasonable grounds concerns or may concern corrupt conduct. The inspector may furnish every report made by the inspector under the Act to the presiding officer of each House of Parliament. The fact that the inspector provides the reports directly to Parliament ensures the independence of those reports. However, the inspector must provide the Minister with a draft of each report that is to be furnished to Parliament and give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to the draft report. Similarly, if a report sets out an opinion that is critical of another division of the government service or any other person, the inspector must give those people a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. This will ensure that relevant parties are informed and it addresses concerns relating to natural justice. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13591
While the inspector must consider any comments made in relation to a draft report, the inspector will not be bound to amend the report in light of those submissions. The inspector must not disclose information in a report if there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information. A similar balancing test to that set out in the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 is provided for. However, the fact that disclosure of information might be misunderstood or might cause embarrassment to the Government is irrelevant and must not be taken into account. This test provides an appropriate balance between the public interest in the inspector disclosing such information and particular circumstances in which the disclosure of the information would harm the public interest. For example, the disclosure of the whereabouts and security arrangements regarding a person convicted of terrorism offences could potentially threaten national security, or the disclosure of the identity of an informant could endanger the informant's life. However, it would be open to the inspector to amend his or her report to minimise any adverse public interest; for example, by keeping people referred to in the report anonymous.
The bill provides that communication between inmates and the inspector remain confidential by deeming the inspector an exempt body for the purpose of clause 107 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 and clause 3 of the Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 2010. The 2009 report of the General Purpose Standing Committee of the Legislative Council of the New South Wales Parliament on its inquiry into privatisation of prisons and prison-related services also recommended that the New South Wales Government establish a prisons parliamentary oversight committee with powers and authority similar to the committees of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission. Consistent with this proposal, the joint parliamentary committee that currently monitors the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner will also monitor the inspector.
The joint committee will monitor and review the inspector's exercise of its functions, examine reports of the inspector, report to Parliament on matters relating to the inspector and inquire into matters referred to it by Parliament. The joint committee will also have the power to veto the appointment or reappointment of the inspector. The inspector will be appointed for a term of five years and may be reappointed only once. The inspector will be able to be removed from office only in very limited circumstances, including for incapacity, incompetence, misbehaviour or unsatisfactory performance. These features ensure that the inspector retains the highest degree of independence. There will be a statutory review of the inspector after five years. The rate of remuneration of the inspector will be determined in accordance with the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Act 1975, as occurs in the case of the Ombudsman and the Commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.25 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. The Opposition does not oppose the bill despite the fact that it represents a broken election promise by this Government in that it does not quite do what the Government claims that it does. However, not to worry, the Opposition will move amendments to help the Government keep its election commitment and to enable the Government to atone. The objects of the bill are to provide for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services, to establish the functions of that position and to make a number of consequential miscellaneous amendments.
Division 1 of part 2 of the bill gives the Government the legal basis to appoint an Inspector of Custodial Services and it gives the inspector the legal basis to employ staff and retain contractors. The functions of the inspector are set out in clause 6, which include to inspect each juvenile justice centre and juvenile correctional centre every three years and to inspect other custodial centres—best referred to as adult custodial centres—at least once every five years. In addition, the inspector can examine and review any custodial service at any time and has to report to Parliament on each inspection, examination and review. The inspector will also have a principal function of reporting to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the inspector if it is in any person's interest or the public interest. Other principal functions of the inspector relate to reports at the request of the Minister, including such recommendations as are appropriate, and overseeing, advising, training and assisting official visitors.
Clauses 7 and 8 of the bill deal with the inspector's powers. Clause 12 requires preparation of an annual report. The bill includes provisions to regulate the relationship between the Ombudsman and the inspector and the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the inspector. The bill also contains provisions mandating the delivery of draft reports, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, to those bodies and individuals criticised in the proposed report. The inspector, of course, is not required to disclose information if there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. Schedule 1 to the bill provides that the term of appointment is five years as 13592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
well as for a reappointment, but that no one person can hold the office for terms totalling more than 10 years, which is a sensible suggestion given some of the sensitivities and issues with which the holder of that office will have to deal.
The appointment to the position is subject to a veto by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission—a committee on which I serve. That committee now has vetoes in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission, the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, the Ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner.
The committee also will have oversight responsibilities for the Inspector of Custodial Services as it does for those officers and bodies that I just mentioned, with the exception of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which the Opposition regards as appropriate, given what has historically been the efficient and effective way in which that parliamentary committee has operated. Clause 20 of the bill has specific provision for the protection of complainants and a five-year statutory review as mandated by clause 28. I also note that clause 23 of the bill has been criticised by the Legislation Review Committee, which stated:
The committee is concerned that the delegation powers contained in this bill may be too wide and ill-defined and refers to Parliament its concerns.
The position of an inspector in relation to correctional centres has an interesting history in this State. In 1995 the then Labor Opposition went to an election promising to create such a position if elected, and in due course the Inspector-General of Prisons was appointed. Between 1997 and 2002 there was a statutory office in New South Wales known as the Inspector-General of Corrective Services. The legislation establishing the office provided that at the end of the first five-year period of its existence the office would automatically cease unless both Houses of Parliament otherwise passed an Act or resolution. No such Act or resolution was passed and on 1 October 2003 the statutory body ceased to exist. A five-year statutory review was carried out by Vern Dalton and John Avery, which recommended the abolition of the position.
In June 2009 the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 published its report on the inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. The report highlighted that the inspectorate of corrections was essentially part of Corrective Services and therefore would not be seen as having the independence required to perform its duties. The committee noted the establishment of independent prison inspectors in a number of other jurisdictions and recommended that the position of a New South Wales inspector general of prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons. The committee also recommended that a prisons oversight committee be established with similar powers to the committees on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: That was my motion.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. We will get it onto Hansard. Are you happy now?
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Yes.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: Good. Prior to the last election the then Opposition, now the Government, made this election commitment, "The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals propose to reintroduce the role of inspector of corrections who will also supervise juvenile detention centres." That precise wording is taken from the Coalition's written commitment to the Community Justice Coalition. The promise was to reintroduce the inspector's role. That is not what this bill does. This bill does not reintroduce the role as it previously was, which is the only reasonable interpretation of the then Opposition's promise. That is why we will move amendments to the bill.
When the Minister in the other place introduced this bill he made it clear that the inspector will not deal with individual complaints by prisoners but must refer them to the Ombudsman. The Minister described the inspector as a champion for prisons and prison officers, with prison officers being able to air their concerns with the inspector. It looks like prisoner complaints cannot be pursued by an inspector but complaints by prison officers can. That is an interesting approach, but that is not what the bill seems to do in any case. At the very least it would be an odd structure.
In his second reading speech in the other place the Minister once again made it explicit that the inspector's role would not extend to dealing with complaints or grievances of individuals. The Minister made the 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13593
point that this is very different from the earlier model, which is what we say he promised to reintroduce but has not. The Minister, arguing that the duplication of complaint processes was the reason that the previous model was abolished, ignores the fact that the Dalton report said there was a proliferation of oversight bodies. That criticism would apply to this bill as much as it would to the previous model. I am not aware of the position having changed in that regard. However, whatever the merits or otherwise of the inspector investigating individual complaints, it was that model the Minister promised to reintroduce. That promise has now been broken.
In his second reading speech the Minister relied upon the recommendation of the upper House committee to support the reintroduction of the Inspector of Custodial Services. That was the report on privatisation which I mentioned. Recommendation 10 of the report, which I now understand was authored by the Hon. Trevor Khan—
The Hon. Trevor Khan: No. Well, go on.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I note that the Hon. Trevor Khan claims authorship of recommendation 10, which states:
The position of New South Wales Inspector General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons.
"Reinstated" is a fairly simple term. It means to put back into place or to return to the status quo ante. There are not too many ways of interpreting that word; however, that is not the model in the bill before the House. One of the explicit bases in the committee's report proposing the recommendation was that it would allow individual inmates to have their complaints dealt with. The committee explicitly quoted Mr Craig Baird, Manager of the Prisoners Aid Association of New South Wales, to that effect. The upper House inquiry report emphasises that the Government has not kept its commitment. When the public announcement of the establishment of this body was made, the Minister stressed that the inspector would be a champion for prison officers who could then go to him with their concerns. However, by the second reading stage that is not what the bill appears to do. As the Minister says:
The inspector will take a holistic approach, focusing on systemic issues in correctional facilities to bring about real change.
The inspector is no longer a champion for prison officers but will only concern himself with much broader issues. The broader focus is consistent with the two models referred to by the Minister: The Western Australian model and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. But it is entirely inconsistent with the Government's rhetoric when the announcement was made when the bill was introduced.
The provisions of the bill are also not as categoric as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary claimed. For example, there is no outright prohibition on a prisoner complaining to the inspector. The inspector's functions, as we read them, allow him to report to Parliament on any particular issues relating to his functions. I am not sure that that is quite what the Minister has been saying. Many oversight bodies use complaints—the level, nature and distribution—as an indication of where effort needs to be made by an agency. Of course, not every complaint is justified, but individual complaints are often an indicator of deeper systemic issues—which is what we are told the inspector's role will be concerned with. Even if the major role of the inspector is to be the broader holistic one referred to earlier, complaint handling assessment can be an important tool in carrying out that role efficiently. I also should respond to the comments about the Ombudsman allegedly not making a special report to Parliament about prisons since 2000. In fact, the Ombudsman reports on corrections every year in his annual report.
Mr David Shoebridge: He did one just last week.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. I turn now to Official Visitors and the role that the inspector will have in relation to them. The inspector will take over administration of the Official Visitor Scheme. It is said that will enhance independence. Certainly, independence for Official Visitors is desirable. The real issue though is independence not from Corrective Services but from the Minister. Last year the Minister refused to reappoint an Official Visitor from the Bathurst region who had engaged in anti-State Government activity. Regrettably this bill does not seem to alter that position.
Towards the closing of the second reading speeches delivered by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the Government touched on the United Nations optional protocol to the Convention against Torture 13594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, known by the acronym OPCAT. This protocol requires State parties to establish independent bodies, which are referred to as National Preventative Mechanisms [NPM], with the power to inspect places of detention, such as prisons, police stations, juvenile detention centres and secure mental health facilities. The protocol was signed by Australia in 2009 but has not yet been ratified. The Commonwealth Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was due to report on the ratification of the protocol by the end of June, but I am unsure whether it has.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: It has.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: In which case I have not had the opportunity of reading it. I note that the Minister in the final paragraph of his speech put in a claim for the role envisaged by this bill to be a National Preventive Mechanism. We say a National Preventive Mechanism's role relates not just to prisons and juvenile detention centres but also to police stations and secure mental health facilities. If the idea is that his role will fulfil a broader role as a potential National Preventive Mechanism, obviously the legislation does not provide for that. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, despite the fact it does not implement fully but rather breaks an election commitment given by the Government when in Opposition. We say that the rhetoric by the Minister and the Governor-General is not reflected in the bill. To remedy that situation we will move amendments to give Government members in this place the option to adhere to the Government's commitment.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.38 p.m.]: I will first deal with the issue of the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According to the e-brief note that has been distributed recently, a report on the ratification of the protocol was published on 21 June 2012 by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the matter having been referred to the committee on 28 February 2012. The committee noted:
Australia's inspection systems, while substantial, do not fully meet the Optional Protocol requirements. It is anticipated that implementation will involve designating a range of existing inspection regimes at jurisdictional level, utilising a cooperative approach between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. A working group of officials from all jurisdictions, reporting to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, has been formed to carry forward implementation arrangements.
The e-brief refers to the Attorney General's statement in his second reading speech that the inspector could be deemed to be part of the national preventative mechanism to assist the State in meeting its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [OPCAT]. As noted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Searle, the genesis of this bill was in part the recommendations that flowed from the inquiry undertaken by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in New South Wales.
Current members of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, the Hon. Helen Westwood and the Hon. John Ajaka, served on that committee, along with a former member, Ms Sylvia Hale, who was a very active committee member—I remember a deliberative meeting that dealt with a draft report that went on for two very torturous days—and the late Hon. Roy Smith who made a very significant and considered contribution to the committee. I formed an even higher opinion of the late Hon. Roy Smith as a consequence of his contribution to the work of the committee.
Clearly the committee dealt with recommendation 10, and my recollection is that that was not entirely supported by all the then Government members, but it certainly had strong support from the crossbench and the then Opposition members. I note what has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition regarding reinstatement and congratulate him on his loyal approach to the English language. Our intention was the appointment of the Inspector of Custodial Services. This bill goes well and truly beyond what the Hon. John Ajaka and I anticipated that a government would do.
The Hon. Adam Searle: That says more about your view of your own Government than it says about what was promised.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I note the recommendation made by the committee in 2009. Notwithstanding the recommendation having been made, and the attempted point-scoring by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former Labor Government did not take up the recommendations made by the committee. It has taken our Government in 2012 to act appropriately.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: A reformist government. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13595
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: As rightly said by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, this Government is a reformist government. The proposed functions of the inspector are set out in clause 6, which states:
(a) to inspect each custodial centre (other than juvenile justice centres and juvenile correctional centres) at least once every 5 years,
(b) to inspect each juvenile justice centre and juvenile correctional centre at least once every 3 years—
an example of that would be Kariong. Clause 6 also states—
(c) to examine and review any custodial service at any time,
(d) to report to Parliament on each such inspection, examination or review,
(e) to report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the Inspector if, in the Inspector's opinion, it is in the interest of any person or in the public interest to do so,
(f) to report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the Inspector if requested to do so by the Minister,
(g) to include in any report [to Parliament] such advice or recommendations as the Inspector thinks appropriate (including advice or recommendations relating to the efficiency, economy and proper administration of custodial centres and custodial services),
(h) to oversee Official Visitor programs conducted under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987—
In other words, there will be Official Visitor programs for both Corrective Services and juvenile justice centres. I will deal with some of those matters in more detail later. The proposed powers of the inspector are set out in clause 7, which states:
The Inspector in the exercise of the Inspector's functions:
(a) is entitled to full access to the records of any custodial centre (including health records) and may make copies of, or take extracts from, those records and may remove and retain those copies or extracts, and
(b) may visit and examine any custodial centre at any time the Inspector thinks fit, and
(c) may require custodial centre staff members to supply information or produce documents or other things relating to any matter, or any class or kind of matters, concerning a custodial centre's operations, and
(d) may require custodial centre staff members to attend before the Inspector to answer questions or produce documents or other things relating to a custodial centre's operations, and
(e) may refer matters relating to a custodial centre to other appropriate agencies for consideration or action, and
(f) is entitled to be given access to persons in custody, detained or residing at any custodial centre for the purpose of communicating with them.
In addition, clause 8 provides:
The Inspector has power to do all things necessary to be done for or in connection with, or reasonably incidental to, the exercise of the Inspector's functions. Any specific powers conferred on the Inspector by this Act are not taken to limit by implication the generality of this section.
The term "custodial centre" is defined in clause 3 (1) of the 2012 bill, which states:
(a) a correctional centre (including a juvenile correctional centre, a managed correctional centre and a periodic detention centre),
(b) a residential facility,
(c) a transitional centre,
(d) a juvenile justice centre,
but does not include any police station or court cell complex that is not managed by Corrective Services NSW or Juvenile Justice.
13596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The term "custodial service" is defined in clause 3 (1) to mean:
(a) the management, direction, control or security of a custodial centre,
(b) the security, management, control, safety, care or welfare (including health care) of persons in custody, detained or residing at a custodial centre,
(c) the transport of persons in custody or otherwise detained to or from a custodial centre by or on behalf of Corrective Services NSW or Juvenile Justice,
but does not include any function of, or service provided by, the NSW Police Force, the Serious Offenders Review Council, the Serious Young Offenders Review Panel or the State Parole Authority.
In the light of comments made during debate, particularly those made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Searle, it is worthwhile examining the relationship between the inspector and the Ombudsman. Although the inspector will not have a complaints investigation role, there appears to be similarity between the functions conferred by the bill upon the proposed inspector and the investigative and reporting functions of the Ombudsman. Clause 10 of the bill provides for the management of this potential overlap and states:
(1) The Inspector and the Ombudsman may enter into arrangements regarding:
(a) matters the subject of a complaint, inquiry, investigation or other action under the Ombudsman Act 1974 about which the Ombudsman will notify the Inspector, and
(b) matters about which the Inspector will notify the Ombudsman that could be made the subject of such a complaint, inquiry, investigation or other action, and
(c) the handling of reviews, inspections, investigations or other matters by the Inspector that could be dealt with by the Ombudsman under that Act.
(2) The Inspector and the Ombudsman are empowered and required to exercise their functions in conformity with any relevant arrangements entered into under this section.
The bill also allows the inspector to share information obtained in the exercise of his or her functions with the Ombudsman if, in the inspector's opinion, the information relates to a matter that the Ombudsman is capable of investigating. The bill has a reciprocal provision relating to information obtained by the Ombudsman. Essentially, this bill anticipates criticism made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Searle, on behalf of the Opposition. It creates what could be described as a seamless network of arrangements between the Ombudsman's office and the inspector's office to ensure that complaints are effectively and thoughtfully dealt with without overlap and duplication, which was a criticism made of the earlier model. This bill anticipates and thoroughly deals with matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Opposition. The details of any arrangements that may be entered into, along with the resourcing and operation of the inspector's office, are matters that are left to regulation and administrative policies and practices.
I will now deal with arrangements concerning the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. Clause 11 (1) of the bill provides that the inspector has the same duty as the principal officer of a public authority under section 11 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, which is to report suspected corruption to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Clause 11 (3) states that the inspector may enter into arrangements with the Independent Commission Against Corruption regarding the following matters:
(a) matters about which the ICAC will notify the Inspector where the ICAC suspects misconduct of a custodial centre staff member exists, and
(b) the handling of matters by the Inspector that may involve misconduct of a custodial centre staff member and that could be dealt with by the ICAC under that Act.
In accordance with clause 11 (2), the Inspector must not exercise any of his functions in relation to a matter involving suspected corruption unless authorised to do so by arrangements entered into under this section. I make further observations with regard to the administration of the Official Visitors program. The Inspector of Custodial Services Bill transfers the administration of the Official Visitors program from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector. I believe we all accept that Official Visitors perform an essential function in correctional centres. They visit correctional centres regularly in order to resolve inquiries and complaints from inmates and staff at the local level. Official Visitors produce regular reports on the types of inquiries and complaints they have received and any issues of concern. This acts as a safety valve for potential issues that may arise within correctional centres. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13597
The administration of the Official Visitors program includes functions such as the gazettal of appointments, ensuring that Official Visitors are visiting correctional facilities as required, payment of fees and travel expenses, answering queries on policy, procedures and legislation, and providing an induction program and ongoing training. The Official Visitors program was previously administered by the former Inspector-General of Corrective Services. However, as we know, the former Inspector-General was dissolved following a five-year statutory review in 2003. The Official Visitors program is presently administered by Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice.
In June 2009 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 handed down its report on the inquiry into privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. The 2009 inquiry received submissions from, amongst others, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which suggested that the role of Official Visitors had been diminished. At the inquiry the Australian Lawyers Alliance stated:
Recent comments by three former "official visitors" to the state's prisons say that their roles are being watered down by the New South Wales Government. Ray Jackson— as opposed to Rex, I suppose—
an official visitor of the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater for 10 years, said: "By the end, we couldn't be autonomous from the department in trying to solve issues."
It is essential that Official Visitors are independent from those agencies that manage correctional facilities. There is an obvious conflict of interest between Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice administering the Official Visitors program and the fact that reports of Official Visitors may be critical of those very same agencies. The transfer of administration of the Official Visitors program to the inspector will resolve this conflict of interest. Whilst the role of the inspector is not to resolve complaints of individual inmates, the inspector will be able to use the information contained in Official Visitors' reports in order to flag systemic issues that may require the inspector's attention.
I note that Official Visitors will continue to be appointed by the Minister. Official Visitors will provide all reports to the inspector as well as continue to provide those reports to the Minister and Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice, as appropriate, who may comment on those reports. The continuation of these processes will ensure that relevant agencies are able to respond appropriately to Official Visitors' reports. The transfer of the administration of the Official Visitors program from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector will improve the independence of the Official Visitors program, thereby enhancing its effectiveness. I note that that intent was one of the matters considered so important to the 2009 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.54 p.m.]: I raise some concerns with aspects of the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 and in doing so refer to the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services report that was handed down by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 in June 2009. In listening to the debate one would have believed that the Hon. Trevor Khan had authored the report. He was a member of the committee. It was very kind and gracious of him to acknowledge that I was a member of the committee. In fact, I was the chair of the committee and had a lot to do with the recommendations included in the report.
I raise two issues with respect to the reintroduction of the New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons. One is that when the committee made the recommendation the position was not to be reintroduced in the manner that has been described in this bill but, rather, to hear individual complaints from prisoners, which had been its role in the past. It used to be the case that in New South Wales prisons prisoners could pick up the phone and have a direct line to either the Ombudsman's office or the Inspector-General's office. The reason for their being able to do so was that they could discreetly make complaints or raise issues of concern directly with the people who were able to investigate those matters. To have an Inspector of Custodial Services, as indicated in this bill, who will deal with complaints from prisoners and prison officers only goes two-thirds of the way of actually undertaking the role of a proper inspector general.
The second issue relates to the oversight committee. The 2009 report recommended that we establish a prisons parliamentary oversight committee, a standalone committee, not one that is rolled in with the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission. With the incredible work that has to be done by the existing oversight committee, it is not appropriate to load it up with another role, particularly with the increasing realignment of Corrective Services in New South Wales and the privatisation of prisons on the agenda of this Government to a far greater extent than was ever contemplated by the previous Government. It is entirely inappropriate not to have a standalone oversight committee for that role. I encourage members to 13598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
support the amendments foreshadowed by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because this legislation as it currently stands is flawed and can be improved. It is our role as members of Parliament to improve legislation wherever possible. I urge members to take account of these two issues and support our foreshadowed amendments.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.57 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I indicate our support for the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. In doing so, I acknowledge the bill has some limitations, although it is a step forward in terms of oversight for prisons in New South Wales. When citizens are sentenced to prison they should not lose all of their rights. They lose their right to liberty, quite properly, and they are extremely constrained in their communications. Whilst there is every intention for a significant degree of punishment in a custodial sentence, prisoners cannot lose all their rights. There is the necessity also to have an independent set of eyes to oversight our correctional institutions for both adult and juvenile prisoners. Sadly, for the past three, almost four years there has not been an independent set of eyes; there has not been an independent inspector for prisons in New South Wales. One of the positive commitments that the O'Farrell Government made in the election campaign was to put in place an Inspector of Custodial Services. Therefore, it is pleasing to see that the bill puts in place an inspector, albeit with limited powers.
The bill creates the role of Inspector of Custodial Services. Custodial centres are taken in the bill to include all correctional centres, adult and juvenile, as well as residential facilities, transitional centres and juvenile justice centres. Police station and court cells are not included as they are not managed by correctional services or juvenile justice. Under section 4 the inspector is appointed by the Governor on advice from the Minister. The proposal to nominate the person is required to be considered by the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission. That committee will have a veto power. That positive move in the bill will allow for ongoing meaningful scrutiny by that committee of proposed appointments.
Schedule 1 to the bill provides that the person appointed to the position of inspector cannot be a member of Parliament in Australia. That, of course, is a sensible provision. Nor can the inspector have been employed at a custodial centre within the past three years or be otherwise connected to a custodial centre. Section 5 provides that staff can be employed to assist the inspector if this is determined to be necessary. There will be a need for this Parliament and for the Government to monitor the resources provided to the inspector. The House has seen other independent inspectors such as the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and a new, potentially part-time, Inspector of the Crime Commission confronted with extremely onerous tasks on a part-time basis—sometimes only one day a week—
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 later hour.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
FIRE STATION CLOSURES
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In light of submissions to the Industrial Relations Commission from the State's firefighters—who have warned that closing fire stations will put community safety at risk—will the Government drop its plans to shut down up to eight fire stations each day?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I can confirm that within about 48 hours this matter will again be before the Industrial Relations Commission. I have no intention of providing a running commentary on a matter currently listed before the Industrial Relations Commission. I would have thought that the Labor Party— which constantly talks about the importance and sovereignty of the Industrial Relations Commission—would be the first to acknowledge the importance of this issue for the people and firefighters of this State. Having said that, I will say nothing further about the matter. I inform the Leader of the Opposition that if more questions are asked on this matter, I will respond in like manner.
M5 WEST WIDENING PROJECT
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Will the Minister for Roads and Ports update the House on the widening of the M5 West motorway?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Given that this is the first day of a new session I wish to acknowledge my Parliamentary Secretary, who is well known as the best Parliamentary Secretary I have ever had. I thank him for 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13599
his very good question, which relates to the Government getting on with the job of delivering on its election commitment to widen the M5 West—something that the Opposition tried but never delivered. The first question I was asked as a Minister by those opposite was about the widening of the M5 West. I am sure they are keen to get an update on the delivery of this important project. "Delivery" is a word upon which members on this side of the House pride themselves—unlike those opposite. It is a term not familiar to them. Last week the Premier and I had the honour of turning the first sod on the M5 West widening.
[Interruption]
I would not talk about sods if I were a member of the Opposition. The Government is delivering a key election commitment. Delivering of this major infrastructure project was a key election commitment to western Sydney motorists. That construction work has started is further proof that the New South Wales Government is getting on with the job. This region of Sydney is set to get a major infrastructure boost in the form of the M5 West widening and the South-West Rail Link from the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government. Once completed the M5 West widening will mean faster journeys for the 90,000 motorists who use it every day. The M5 West widening aims to deliver travel time savings of up to 12 minutes along the length of the motorway heading west in the evening peak.
For the majority of the motorists who use the motorway for shorter trips, such as those getting off at Fairford Road, as much as 10 minutes could be saved when heading east in the morning. More than half of the motorists travelling east on the M5 West leave the motorway before the start of the M5 East tunnel. This will provide real benefits for tens of thousands of motorists. Not only is the motorway widening designed to improve travel times on the M5; it will also help to reduce congestion on surrounding roads. A headline in this week's Macarthur Chronicle said it all: "Motorists rejoice: M5 upgrade starts". The work, estimated to support around 500 jobs, will provide an additional lane in each direction from Camden Valley Way at Prestons to King Georges Road at Beverly Hills.
The $400 million widening project is funded by Interlink Roads with the New South Wales Government contributing $50 million towards the cost of noise walls and other noise mitigation measures. There will be six kilometres of new noise walls and 12 kilometres of heightened noise walls, bridge upgrades, a new motorway control centre at Hammondville toll plaza and improved travel information for motorists. Work will also include resurfacing the entire road, and this will provide motorists with a smoother and quieter road. We look after our customers. Toll charges for cars will not increase to fund the project. The project is due for completion towards the end of 2014—weather permitting. Every effort will be made to minimise disruption.
FIRE STATION CLOSURES
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise the House what, if any, public safety risk assessments were undertaken prior to the decision to close up to eight fire stations a day, and will the Government publicly release any such assessments?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I advised in answer to an earlier question the approach I would take to further questions on this subject, but obviously there is no flexibility with the Opposition's question time strategy. If the Opposition has no questions on any other topic, then the Government will bat on and hope that things get better as the day progresses. The reality is that the brief is not going to improve. I will not provide a commentary to anyone in this House about a matter that is listed before the Industrial Relations Commission. I would have thought that a lawyer who professes to be a great advocate for the sovereignty and importance of the Industrial Relations Commission would be the first to say, "Listen, mate, that question was out of order." It seems that the member opposite has been given instructions from above or below—depending on where one is situated in the building. I do not want to be peddling rumours but there is a suggestion that there are members of the Labor Party who are not great fans of the Leader of the Opposition.
[Interruption]
The Government has flushed them all out. Thank goodness the Hon. Amanda Fazio supports the Leader of the Opposition. The Hon. Adam Searle has his eyes on the position of Leader of the Opposition. 13600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
POLICE FIREARMS STORAGE INSPECTIONS
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and relates to police firearms storage inspections in private homes. Will the Minister inform the House whether police doing firearms storage inspections in private homes use only the encrypted police radio system to inform the radio room that they are going off at a certain address for a certain task?
The Hon. Robert Brown: It is an interesting question.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yes, it is an interesting question, given that quite a degree of investment has been made, particularly in the metropolitan area, in voice encryption on the police radio network. I am sure members opposite would recall that when they were in government the concerns expressed by the media that they were no longer able, shall we say, to listen to police radio messages as a result of the encryption.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: They would not do that; that would be illegal.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They were just trying to do the right thing by the public, to make sure there was good reporting on crime. But of course the media do not need to do that because things are improving under our Government; they are a lot more satisfied now. But, be that as it may, the member has asked a serious question. I am not aware of the extent of the encryption in country and regional areas of New South Wales; I do know that police have this encryption in the metropolitan area. And I am not across whether the State is fully encrypted, or whether parts of it are not encrypted, but I will endeavour to find out. But bear in mind that the police radio network, if it is not encrypted in country or regional areas of this State, is the very same radio network that police would be using in their normal day-to-day operations, whether that be in the execution of a search warrant in relation to keeping an eye open for wanted felons or wanted vehicles. Whatever may be the use, the radio networks that they use, in conjunction with vehicle inspections or in this case firearms inspections, are the very same radio networks that police use in their day-to-day operations. I will endeavour to find out the extent of the encryption and come back to the member with a further response to his question.
BUSHFIRE HAZARD REDUCTION
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Given that the prevailing wet weather over recent years has produced an abundance of grass fuel—not seen since the 1970s or 1980s when the last big droughts broke—will the Minister advise the House on the commitment that the Government has made to preparing New South Wales for the coming bush fire season?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for her question. Over the past two years New South Wales has experienced a strong La Niña event, resulting in two of the wettest summers on record. The statewide rainfall has produced in some areas extensive and continuous grass fuels to levels not seen in 30 or 40 years. However, current weather modelling by the Bureau of Meteorology indicates the potential for an El Niño event to develop in late winter or early spring. If this occurs, it is likely to increase the chance of warmer and dryer conditions over New South Wales in coming months. Last month's above average rainfall, combined with the predicted warmer weather, will result in high grass fuel loads in spring, adding to the considerable fuel loads already accumulated over the past two years.
As grass fuels dry out faster than forest fuels, we can expect to see significant loadings of dry fuel across the State in the coming fire season. The number of incidents is expected to increase substantially. In fact, curing has already increased by up to 20 per cent in grassland areas across the State. That is one of the reasons that this year's budget is providing $35 million to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service to continue reducing bush fire hazards. This will allow the Rural Fire Service to allocate significant funding to a range of programs aimed at raising our level of preparedness to face the challenges of the fire season.
The Rural Fire Service will focus resources on mitigating the key risks across the State, as identified by local bush fire management committees, including programs such as State Mitigation Support Services, with funding of $15 million, to carry out preparatory works, which will enable rural fire brigades to undertake essential hazard reduction activities; Mitigation Grant Funds of $14 million, to support State agencies, local government, land managers and rural fire brigades to complete critical hazard reduction works and to upgrade strategic fire trails statewide; and the Grassland Strategic Breaks Management Program, of $1 million, to improve fire control options for rural fire brigades by limiting the extent of grass fire runs across the landscape. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13601
Local government will receive $6 million to assist in managing bush fire hazards on council land such as roads, reserves, depots, garbage tips and playing fields, or any public amenity adjacent to bushland. A further allocation of $2.5 million, will go to the Natural Disaster Resilience Program, for the creation and maintenance of fire trails, as well as other volunteer support and resilience projects. There is some evidence, however, that many communities are becoming complacent, having not been impacted by fire for a number of years. To address this issue of community complacency the Government has committed $2.3 million in this State budget to ensure that public awareness continues to be raised, that communities have an understanding of the potential danger posed by bush fires, and that appropriate action is taken to improve their level of protection from bush fire.
The Rural Fire Service is developing this new public awareness campaign using extensive qualitative research and product testing to ensure that the most effective approach is implemented. The campaign is designed to reinforce the need for preparation and preparedness, to increase people's understanding of the risk, and to motivate them to prepare a bush fire survival plan. New South Wales may be assured that this Government and the Rural Fire Service are continuing our efforts towards protecting communities across the State from the threat of bush fire.
GROUNDWATER AND COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. On my recent frack-finding tour of the United States of America—which I know those opposite followed closely, and I thank them for that—I visited farmers in Pavilion, Wyoming who are having drinking water trucked in by the local gas company after their wells were found to be contaminated with diesels and glycols. Will the Government guarantee that water will not have to be delivered to New South Wales farmers because of water contamination from coal seam gas exploration or production?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question and for enlightening the House on his frack-finding tour. It is a little bit like fractured fairytales, I would have thought, but I am not going there. It is sufficient to say that the Coalition took the best policy in this country to the last election.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Who was its author?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was. It was acknowledged by just about everyone that it was the best policy in this country.
The Hon. Steve Whan: But you did not deliver it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I did not deliver it, because I have a different portfolio. But we are about to deliver. We have gone from Australia's best policy to the world's best practice, and that is what we will be delivering. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham should hold his breath; he is going to go very red in the face because all his wildest desires—
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The question related to a guarantee that this Government would not stand by and allow water to be contaminated by coal seam gas activities. The Minister's response has not been on that matter.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister was being relevant.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The worst thing for this young man will be when this policy comes out, because whilst we have been working hard developing the world's best policy he has been spreading dissent and lies—
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Like Louie the Fly.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He is a little bit like Louie the Fly—spreading disease.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: With the greatest of ease, straight from The Greens to you.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. I will leave my response there. 13602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
FIRE AND RESCUE NSW
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister guarantee that there will not be an increase in fire response times following the Government's decision to cut $64 million in funding from Fire and Rescue NSW?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I refer the member—
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: It is about the budget.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I know. But I refer the member to the ongoing savings strategy. I have indicated to the member, as I have to other members, that as aspects of the matter are currently subject to discussion and presentation before the Industrial Relations Commission I will not be going into the details.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was specifically about a government budget decision not about the Industrial Relations Commission's consideration of things that might flow from that later on. The question was about a government decision and the Minister can answer that question perfectly well without having to hide in coward's castle and refer to matters concerning the Industrial Relations Commission.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I said, in relation to the position that the Government takes with regard to savings strategies across government, we will stick to that savings strategy and we will continue to work with the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW. I have spoken personally to members of the Fire Brigades Employees Union and I will continue to engage with them to ensure that, as they have suggested, they find an alternative savings strategy. They should do that in consultation with the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW. It is about indicating to those involved in these essential services that they use their expertise and look at what they can manage because they are the ones who deliver the services to the people of New South Wales. We trust them in the delivery of those services but, at the same time, as a whole community we realise that we cannot continue to live beyond our means and we all need to share the program of making savings.
People voted for change at the last election. The Opposition's interpretation of change is change that applies to them; our view is that change applies to all of us—that we must all change our approach to government, we must all change our approach to expenditure and we must all ensure that we are putting in place a changed culture within this State that will ensure that we are viable as a State for the future and that we can create an environment whereby jobs come to this State. Governments do not create jobs; private enterprise creates jobs. For us to show private enterprise that we are serious and want people to invest here we have to show leadership ourselves. We need to make decisions that go right across government, that affects all of us, to ensure that at the end of the day we can make a joint decision in relation to where we can—
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I asked the Minister a specific question about increases in response times following a budget decision—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. The member will resume his seat. The Minister is being generally relevant.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I again make the point that operational decisions are made by the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and, unlike those opposite, we trust in the decisions made by the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW.
WORKERS COMPENSATION SCHEME
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on the transitional arrangements and implementation for the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I can report that WorkCover is working with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition for workers and employers to the new workers compensation system. On 7 August 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13603
I announced that these reforms will be implemented in several stages to allow an orderly rollout of the new systems and claims procedure. The first to benefit will be some seriously injured workers under the current scheme who have greater than 30 per cent whole person impairment and cannot work. Many of those workers will receive increased benefits from 17 September 2012. Those workers on the current statutory rate of $432.50 will see their benefits increased to the transitional rate of $725.00.
From 1 October 2012 all new claims will be covered entirely within the new system of weekly step-downs, which from weeks one to 13 are up to 95 per cent of pre-injury earnings. From weeks 14 to 130 for those workers working 15 hours a week or more, their income, including workers compensation benefits and their other earnings, will be up to 95 per cent of their pre-injury earnings, while for workers working less than 15 hours per week their benefits will be 80 per cent of pre-injury earnings from weeks 14 to 130. For those claims made prior to 1 October 2012, transitional arrangements for workers with less than 30 per cent whole person impairment will commence on 1 January 2013. Claims that have not yet reached 26 weeks will continue under the arrangements in the old legislation until they reach the 26-week mark, meaning that until that point workers will receive 100 per cent of their pre-injury earnings. Once those claims reach week 26 those workers will transition immediately onto the new system with the new step-downs.
The House will already be aware that provisions regarding journey claims and nervous shock, changes to claims for strokes, heart attacks and disease and changes to lump-sum compensation were effective from 19 June 2012. The announcements made on 7 August were warmly welcomed by stakeholders such as the New South Wales Business Chamber and the Motor Traders Association, who were very supportive of the new system. After years of this State languishing under New South Wales Labor, which was loath to make any decisions to keep the scheme going, the New South Wales Government is determined to reform the scheme for the benefit of workers and employers.
New South Wales Labor ignored the financial crisis in the scheme. It ignored the fact that it was not effective in getting people back to work. Successive Labor governments were willing to avoid reform even though the scheme was costing New South Wales business between 20 and 60 per cent more than is paid in our competitor States. Labor ignored the evidence that shows the very real health problems associated with staying off work for prolonged periods of time. The Hon. Michael Daley had the gall to accuse this Government of delay. That is fairly ironic for a man who sat on his hands as Minister when all stakeholders were crying out for change. We do not accept those criticisms. The O'Farrell Government is getting on with the job. We are bringing in the vital reforms that the scheme needs, and we will continue to drive improvements in the WorkCover scheme. I recommend that members opposite do what members of the public will do: Go to the WorkCover website for further information on the transition arrangements.
NEWCASTLE PORT STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that the Minister told the House on 19 June that the Newcastle Port Strategic Development Plan would be released "very soon", will the Minister provide a calendar date for the release of this plan and a calendar date for a draft New South Wales freight and ports strategy for the whole of New South Wales given the impending privatisation of port assets in this State?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I shall come back with a concise answer to that question.
BLUE MOUNTAINS FIRE STATIONS
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister give a guarantee to Blue Mountains residents that their local fire stations in Springwood, Katoomba, Wentworth Falls and Leura will not face temporary closure under the Minister's plan to shut down up to eight fire stations each day?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Once more we hear the disgraceful scare campaigns. It is easy to identify that for the members opposite it is all about postcodes: They only pursue certain postcodes and suburbs with regards their great scare campaign, and they will continue to do so. The fact is that the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW is well qualified to consider the strategic placement of fire personnel across this State. Those opposite think they know all based, no doubt, on their many years of experience. We could have had Commissioner Steve Whan but unfortunately he decided to come into this place because in opposition he would not have to do any work. 13604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is on two grounds. The first relates to relevance. The comments the Minister is making are not relevant to the question asked. Second, the Minister is making imputations about another member in this place. That is inappropriate and not within the standing orders at this stage of the proceedings. The question was a serious one. Three people died on the weekend in fires in the Blue Mountains. We want an answer to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member knows that she should not make debating points when taking a point of order, particularly when her point of order might otherwise have had some substance. I encourage the Minister not to reflect on other members and not to make imputations about other members. I ask him to be generally relevant in his response.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: To listen to Opposition members one would think that they are the only people concerned about deaths caused by fire in this State. Everybody is concerned—whether they are members of Fire and Rescue NSW, members of the community or members of Parliament. We have to trust those who are responsible for the deployment of their personnel. There is a continuing message that we need to get out to people during these cold snaps, in particular: Be vigilant and careful in relation to the use of electrical appliances that have the potential to catch fire and ensure that fire and smoke alarms are working. We have to keep making these messages year in and year out even though we would think that they would get through. Sadly, they do not and we have to keep reinforcing those messages.
Like every other part of the State where we see death, the people of the Blue Mountains are in mourning. Right now they are in mourning in relation to the tragic events that occurred in that area last week. I trust the approach that Fire and Rescue NSW will increase community awareness. I know that is of paramount importance because I have spoken to the commissioner. I have also spoken to fire personnel and officers in various locations throughout the State and I know that community safety is important to them. Equally I trust in the ability and of the commissioner to deploy his personnel where he needs them to provide fire services for this State.
ILLAWARRA POLICE CHARITY BALL
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the twenty-seventh Police Charity Ball, which was held in Wollongong on Friday 27 July 2012?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Illawarra Police Charity Ball—the longest continually running police ball in New South Wales—recently celebrated a major milestone with its twenty-seventh anniversary. What started out 27 years ago as an opportunity to mingle with the community has now become a significant event on the policing calendar. In 1985 then Sergeant Beverley Lawson of the Wollongong Patrol wanted to hold a function that would see local police and the community come together for a fun and social evening. The central purpose of this function, however, would be to raise much-needed money to support local charities.
The first charity ball was held on Friday 1 August 1986, at the Fraternity Club, Fairy Meadow, with 200 people in attendance. In 1996 Bev Lawson became the first female deputy commissioner of New South Wales. At the time of her death from a stroke in January 1998, aged 57, she was Australia's highest-ranking female police officer, reaching deputy commissioner. She is someone of whom the NSW Police Force remains immensely proud. Bev Lawson and her family were strong supporters of the charity ball, even as she rose through the ranks of the NSW Police Force. Her vision of a community working together to benefit those in need remains strong and has been adopted by the current committee. Twenty-seven years later and the ball is still going strong.
On 27 July, 340 people attended this year's event. Those attending represent a broad cross-section of the Illawarra residents—emergency service personnel, business representatives and members of the community all come together to enjoy the celebrations on the night. I am informed that the event was so successful that there was a waiting list of 60 people hoping to receive an invitation and that bookings are now being taken for next year's event. I am further informed that the Villains kept the revellers on their toes all night. The Villains, of course, is the name of the popular Wollongong eighties cover band which was invited to perform on the night; not the usual villains our police men and women are used to seeing on a day-to-day basis.
This year the event raised funds for the South Coast Disabled Surfers Association and Illawarra Cancer Carers. This endeavour is assisted each year by generous sponsorships and donations from a variety of 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13605
businesses throughout New South Wales. The South Coast Disabled Surfers Association consists of a group of surfers who help people with a disability to get back into surfing. They have open days and hands-on days for any person with a disability who would like to give surfing a go. The association prides itself that there has never been a person with any disability that they have not been able to help to enjoy surfing. There are 12 branches of the Disabled Surfers Association around Australia—from the South Coast of New South Wales to the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, and soon Victoria and New Zealand.
The Illawarra Cancer Carers are a group of trained volunteers who work in conjunction with the medical staff of the Illawarra Area Health Service offering practical, emotional and physical assistance to cancer patients and their families. The most important aspect of their work is to provide care and support to cancer patients who attend the Cancer Care Centre at Wollongong Hospital. They provide infusion pumps for patients to enable them to carry out their normal duties whilst receiving the required chemotherapy treatment at home and offer a variety of services, including making special cushions for the breast cancer patients, maintaining a supply of turbans for any cancer patient and providing financial assistance for cancer patients. Since its inaugural ball in 1986 the Police Charity Ball has raised over $300,000 for local charities and will continue building on this tremendous amount. I congratulate the NSW Police Force on another well organised event.
CANNABIS USE
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. Given recent reports that continue to link marijuana usage to brain damage, impaired memory and concentration, and given its well known contribution to psychiatric disorders, will the Minister report what proportion of hospital admissions are related to cannabis use? What is the Government doing in relation to public education and awareness programs?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I will seek an answer from the Minister for Health as soon as possible.
SMITHFIELD FIRE STATION
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister give a guarantee to the residents in Smithfield that their local fire station will not face temporary closure under his plan to shut up to eight fire stations each day?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It looks like it is going to be a long week. I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer. I suggest to Opposition members that they add a little bit more creativity to their questions.
M2 UPGRADE
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: It is great to be back. I thank the Minister for Roads and Ports for his commitment to the M5. I ask the Minister to update the House on the M2 upgrade.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows he is most welcome in our midst at any time, albeit at the back of the House. This is yet another question about our Government, in partnership with the private sector, getting on with the job of delivering the infrastructure upgrades that are needed in western Sydney. During the winter break I had the pleasure of joining the member for Baulkham Hills, David Elliott, to open the first important stage of the $550 million Hills M2 upgrade to traffic.
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you, Mr President. Obviously, Opposition members do not care about the people of western Sydney, as demonstrated by their continual noise and disruption. Baulkham Hills is not one of the postcodes represented by Labor. Opposition members represent areas lying to the east of Baulkham Hills, so they do not really care about the people of western Sydney.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Speak into the microphone. 13606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will not respond to the remark made by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, although I acknowledge that the remark was made. It indicates the level of contribution made by such a senior member of the Labor Party, and not once has she been challenged by the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Her leader condones that level of contribution, so I say to the Labor Party hierarchy, "Well done. You're in opposition, and you're going to stay there for a long time because you just don't understand and you don't care."
The new west-facing ramps at Windsor Road allow motorists who are heading west to get onto the motorway at Windsor Road and provide eastbound traffic with the option of taking the off-ramp to access Baulkham Hills, Northmead and Parramatta. The ramps are designed to reduce congestion on local roads, including Old Windsor Road, Caroline Chisholm Drive and Seven Hills Road. Some weekly commuters may benefit from travel time savings of up to 40 minutes each week. The Windsor Road ramps are part of stage one of the overall $550 million M2 upgrade, which includes widening the motorway and providing extra entry and exit points along the 21-kilometre route.
Recently Transurban announced that the project is approximately 70 per cent complete. The widening to three lanes in the motorway's busiest sections will be completed in 2013. In addition to the existing M2 upgrade project, planning has started for a new ramp linking Lane Cove Road and the Hills M2 motorway. For whatever reason, the former Government did not think to include a new ramp linking Lane Cove Road and the Hills M2 motorway in its original deal. Yet again, it has been left to our Government to come in and negotiate a better deal for motorists. The proposed ramp will aim to deliver a faster trip for motorists in the vicinity of Macquarie Park on Lane Cove Road and Epping Road.
Once the ramp is complete, travel times are expected to be cut by up to five minutes in peak periods, with six sets of traffic lights being avoided. The new ramp will give motorists another option and reduce congestion along Lane Cove Road. It is predicted that approximately 5,000 motorists will use the new ramp daily. As part of the planned work, the eastbound lanes on the motorway also will be widened from Lane Cove Road to Delhi Road at North Ryde. The additional ramp and third lane will be built by Transurban and funded by a new toll collection point at the on-ramp. The final toll price will be confirmed when the construction cost is known and contracts are signed following planning approval. The proposed section is in addition to the $550 million upgrade that currently is being carried out to widen and improve the motorway.
The M2 upgrade along with the North-West Rail Link is another example of our Government's determination to improve transport in north-west Sydney. Our Government is committed to delivering to residents in western Sydney better infrastructure and to aiming to deliver shorter travel times, particularly in peak periods.
GOSFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL RELOCATION
Dr JOHN KAYE: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, and I refer to the demolition of buildings at the Henry Kendall High School to facilitate the relocation of Gosford Public School. Will the Minister make a commitment to the House that there will be no demolition of buildings at the Henry Kendall High School until the Joint Regional Planning Panel has made a decision on the Department of Education and Communities' planning application for the co-location project?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. I know he has visited this subject before. Given that he is doing so again, the council elections must not be over yet. We have three or four weeks before that happens.
[Interruption]
I would be voting against Clover Moore if I had half a chance—the same as the Hon. Amanda Fazio— but I will be voting for the good guys in Crookwell. I will not allow interjections to distract me. The question is important. I will refer it to the Minister for a detailed answer.
PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES AND CONDITIONS
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Given the Government recently applied to vary the Crown Employees (Public Service Conditions of Employment) 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13607
Award to strip child protection workers, park rangers and other front-line workers of sick leave, family and community leader and other leave entitlements, will he guarantee that he will not now attempt to wind back protections for nurses, teachers, police and firefighters?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for her question. It is good to see that she is taking an interest in her industrial relations shadow portfolio. The New South Wales public sector wages policy requires that increases in remuneration or other conditions of employment that increase employee-related costs by more than 2.5 per cent per annum are awarded only if sufficient employee-related cost savings have been achieved to fully offset the increase in employee-related costs. The policy was extended to State-owned corporations on 26 April 2012. Since adoption of the policy in June 2011, increases of 2.5 per cent per annum have been awarded to approximately 80,000 public servants, 55,000 public health system employees and 70,000 school and TAFE teachers.
Increases greater than 2.5 per cent have been awarded to 4,000 bus drivers, who achieved 3.25 per cent; to Sydney cricket and sports ground staff, who achieved 3.68 per cent; and to Illawarra Venues Authority staff, who also achieved 3.25 per cent. In respect to public servants, the Government has applied to the Industrial Relations Commission for a number of broad reforms to improve service delivery, support agency workforce management, reduce administrative red tape, and better align employee entitlements with community standards.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: These reforms include removing entitlement to annual leave loading, simplifying shiftwork provisions to align entitlements with modern working arrangements while maintaining appropriate penalty and other payments, removing additional leave entitlements for rural employees based on outdated geographic and travel considerations, and removing access to workers compensation top-up payments in line with the statutory scheme that applies to the rest of the community.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the second time.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The reforms also include aligning sick leave and sick leave for caring purposes as personal carer's leave to provide broader flexibility without increasing entitlement. The proposed reforms are fair and reasonable. If some or all of the reforms are approved by the Industrial Relations Commission, increases to salaries above 2.5 per cent can be awarded. And, Mr President, was it not wonderful to read recently in the Sydney Morning Herald—I cacked—that Eric, Eddie Obeid and Macdonald will be facing questions without notice once again?
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Point of order: The Minister's answer should be relevant. Will the Minister give a guarantee that nurses, teachers, firefighters and police will not cop this disgraceful stripping of entitlements?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was being relevant. The Minister has concluded his answer.
LONDON OLYMPIC GAMES AND ILLAWARRA ATHLETES
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will he update the House on the success achieved by local Illawarra athletes at the London Olympic Games?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Sarah Mitchell for her question. Those who watched the London Olympic Games would have seen the remarkable success of Australia's athletes. I acknowledge the commitment of all athletes who did us proud as well as their coaches, supporters and families. I particularly acknowledge athletes who are proud sporting representatives from the Illawarra. David Smith won gold for Australia in the K4 1000 metres at the London 2012 Olympics. David previously competed in the K4 1000 metres at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. He has been on the national team for six years.
Kieran Govers made his Olympic debut representing Australia in the men's hockey team, the Kookaburras, in London. Kieran has been on the national team for two years. He won a bronze medal as part of the Australian men's hockey team on day 15 of the Olympics, defeating Great Britain in the bronze medal match. Casey Eastham represented Australia in the Australian women's hockey team, the Hockeyroos. The Hockeyroos placed fifth. Casey has been on the national team for seven years, won Commonwealth Games gold in Delhi in 2010 and also competed in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. 13608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
Ryan Gregson made his Olympic debut at London 2012, competing in athletics in the 1500 metres. He has been on the national team for four years. At just 19 Ryan made his senior debut for Australia at the 2009 world chairmanships in Berlin in the 1500 metres. David McKeon made his Olympic debut in London, competing in the men's 400 metres freestyle and the men's four by 200 metres freestyle relay. David went to school in the Illawarra and is associated with the Wests Illawarra Aquatic Swimming Club. Jarrod Poort made his Olympic debut in London, competing in the men's 1500 metres freestyle. Jarrod is a student of the Illawarra Grammar School.
Aidan Zingel made his Olympic debut in London as part of the Australian men's volleyball team, the Volleyroos. Zingel took the court in Australia's fifth place finish in the 2010 Asian Cup before going on to compete in the 2010 World Championships. He went on to be named 2011 Australian male player of the year in a season that saw him play in a game against Italy. Alicia McCormack, who is enrolled in a Bachelor of Primary Education at the University of Wollongong, went to primary school at Helensburgh Public School. Having missed out on realising her dream in 2004, Alicia was selected for her first Olympic competition in Beijing. Alicia won a bronze medal as part of the Australian women's water polo team, the Stingers, on day 13 of the London Olympics. Australia defeated Hungary 13-11 in the bronze medal match.
Again I take this opportunity to congratulate all members of the Australian Olympic team on their success and, in particular, the men and women from the Illawarra, who have been great ambassadors for up-and-coming athletes in the region. They are remarkable athletes and I wish them every success in their future sporting endeavours.
KNIFE CRIME
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice. Does the Government share the concern of the community and of the New South Wales police commissioner regarding the prevalence of knife use amongst young people, with 5,512 knife-related offences in 2011 and only 4,200 in 2007? Does the Coalition acknowledge that when in opposition it took a tough stance on the issue and supported Christian Democratic Party legislation to provide improved penalties and search powers for police? Will the New South Wales Government, pursuant to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, instigate a policy of crowd random knife searches along problem areas of New South Wales streets, especially Kings Cross, similar to random breath tests?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: There is no doubt that all members of the House are concerned about the continuing prevalence of those in our community who, for whatever reason, decide it is okay to carry a knife. We know it is not; it is unlawful. The laws are very clear in relation to that. The use of weapons is of particular concern. Only 18 months ago there was a spate of glassings—some people turned to the use of a glass in an argument they were having with somebody else. Such incidents quite often occurred at licensed premises, but not always; however, the offenders were always under the influence of alcohol. The police stepped up their approach and worked with the industry to address that issue. Of course, we have all been horrified by recent events in relation to the use of knives.
I am sad to say that it is not simply the domain of New South Wales. It is not singularly a problem for our State alone. There has been a proliferation in the number of people who are prepared to carry and use a knife both overseas and in other Australian jurisdictions. Police have quite significant powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act in relation to the searching of a person they suspect of carrying a knife. The honourable member has asked a question beyond the extent of that legislation; his question refers to a more random focus on searching for knives. These matters rest within the purview of the Attorney General. At the same time, they rest with all of us in having an understanding of the problem and a preparedness to look at the issues.
I will refer the honourable member's question to the Attorney General for a comprehensive answer. However, when it comes to methods to approach these problems I regularly seek the advice of the commissioner and senior police, who are talking to other policing agencies around the world. An interesting study has come out of Glasgow. Last week a visitor from Glasgow addressed a Police Citizens Youth Conference and a Blue Light Conference. The study indicated that quite remarkable work is being done in relation to knife crime and gang-related knife crime in Glasgow. Whereas many other cities in the United Kingdom are sadly showing a significant uptrend in the use of knives, it appears some significant results have been achieved in Glasgow in the short term. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13609
I have asked the 200 police who were part of the conference last week to consider the views of the guest speaker and to bring them forward through the chain of command of the Police Force to see whether there are lessons we can learn from the Glaswegian approach to knife crime. However, we must recognise that there are differences within the jurisdictions as well as within the make-up of our communities. Certainly it does not hurt to look at it to work out ways to reduce these types of crimes.
WINDSOR BRIDGE
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Why has the Government refused to wait for the completion of a detailed environmental impact study, and failed to allow adequate public consultation to occur, before deciding to build a replacement bridge through historic Thompson Square in Windsor?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Labor Party should know a lot about this project. It is quiet in the House. I notice the Hon. Eric Roozendaal leaving—and well he should leave the Chamber, as he announced this in 2008 and promised that construction would start in 2009. However, like most of the promises of those opposite, nothing happened. You would not be able to drive any vehicle across the bridge. I am pleased to advise the House that we are getting on with the job of delivery. The archaeological and ground investigations for replacing the Windsor Bridge were recently completed. This is a very important step in delivering the long-awaited upgrade.
Investigations were needed for Roads and Maritime Services to prepare an environmental impact statement. The statement will be used to further develop the design for the new bridge and its approaches, and to gather important information about local geology and any impacts on Aboriginal and European archaeology for the preferred option. The environmental impact statement will be displayed for community comment later this year. Environmental impact statements require detailed heritage assessment. This vital work is being carried out by independent consultants and will be reviewed by the Office of Environment and Heritage and the NSW Heritage Council. All the things the member said we were not doing we are doing.
A new bridge inevitably means a substantial change for Windsor. Roads and Maritime Services has carried out comprehensive research and consultation in order to balance the historic and cultural values of the town with the needs relating to safety, transport and its economic future. I acknowledge concern within the community about a major road being built through the early nineteenth century Thompson Square. In order to alleviate this concern Roads and Maritime Services will lower the level of the approach road to reduce its visual obtrusiveness within the historic precinct. This has been made possible by lowering the planned speed limit on the approach road through the square from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour.
The preferred option for the replacement bridge includes a new approach road along the northern edge of the park at Thompson Square replacing the existing road, which divides the park in two. Significantly, the upgraded approach road will be built on the original nineteenth century bridge approaches—there have been bridges there before—called Old Bridge Street. This will reunify the open space, restore the original shape of the Thompson Square reserve and once again allow a view of this very significant heritage asset as it originally was. In addition, the realignment will allow unimpeded access to the river for the locals and tourists enjoying the park.
The concept design includes a two-lane bridge, capable of being converted to three lanes in the future, with a shared pedestrian and bike path. The bridge has been designed to meet the new approach road at the existing ground level in front of the heritage buildings along Old Bridge Street. This will maintain views and vistas from existing buildings to the centre of the square. The route of the existing road through the middle of the park would be returned as green space under the preferred option. Roads and Maritime Services is working with community groups and stakeholders to understand their issues and progress the concept design. [Time expired.]
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.
NEWCASTLE PORT STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier in question time I was asked a question by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann. I provide the following detailed answer:
Newcastle Port Corporation is currently working to finalise its Strategic Development Plan for the Port of Newcastle.
The Strategic Development Plan will guide the development of the Port of Newcastle over the next 30 years.
13610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The plan sets out how the port will grow and develop over time taking into account global shipping trends, expected growth in task and volumes of goods, safety, channel and marine access and landside transport needs.
The plan is consistent with the planning recommended under the National Ports Strategy and will complement the NSW Freight and Ports Strategy being developed and delivered by the Freight and Regional Development Division of Transport for NSW.
The NSW Freight and Ports Strategy will be delivered later this year.
Newcastle Port Corporation will undertake public consultation about the Strategic Development Plan, once it is finalised.
DEFERRED ANSWERS
The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN
On 22 May 2012 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
The New South Wales Government is aware of the study by Independent Economics and is gravely concerned about the effects on our Basin communities, particularly those highly dependent on irrigation industries. The New South Wales submission to the Murray Darling Basin Authority provides a way forward that properly addresses these concerns.
This includes priority being given to meeting environmental outcomes through infrastructure, environmental works and measures and review of operational and physical system delivery rules rather than the Commonwealth's simplistic approach of licence buybacks. The New South Wales approach would facilitate the ongoing productive capacity of rural communities.
Once all these other measures have been exhausted, the New South Wales position is that there should be a 3 per cent limit on Commonwealth licence buybacks per catchment per decade to meet any remaining gap, and to provide sufficient time for rural communities to adjust.
The Minister for Primary Industries is continuing to meet with the Commonwealth and other jurisdiction water Ministers to highlight the New South Wales position requirements.
The New South Wales Government position remains that we will not accept a basin plan that does not address triple bottom line outcomes—that is, social and economic outcomes as well as environmental outcomes.
COBBORA COALMINE
On 22 May 2012 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Treasurer, a question without notice regarding Cobbora coalmine. The Treasurer provided the following response:
As part of the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals energy policy taken to the 2011 election, the commitment was made to immediately hold a Special Commission of Inquiry into New South Wales Labor's electricity sale and table its recommendations openly and transparently in Parliament.
In the inquiry, the Hon. Brian Tamberlin, QC, found that "If the coal supply agreements with Cobbora Holdings Pty Ltd could not be performed in accordance with their terms, the State would be exposed to a liability in damages to Origin, and the cost of otherwise meeting the demand for coal of the State owned corporation generators, Macquarie Generation and Delta Coastal"(13.75)
With the assistance of external advisers, the Government is scoping out how best to achieve a sale or lease of the coalmine.
OFFSET ALPINE PRINTING FIRE
On 22 May 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier and the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding the Offset Alpine Printing fire. The Attorney General provided the following response:
I am advised:
I refer the honourable member to my answer to his previous question without notice on 10 May 2012.
MAROUBRA BEACH DEVELOPMENT
On 22 May 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, a question without notice regarding the Maroubra Beach development. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure provided the following response:
I am aware that Randwick City Council has publicly exhibited a draft Local Environmental Plan proposing a conditional 22 metre height limit in the Maroubra Beach Commercial Precinct, based on existing allotments being consolidated.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13611
As a result of local resident submissions against the proposed maximum height limits, council has now resolved to reduce the maximum height to16 metres. Lower building heights of 13 metres or less will still apply to some parts of the centre.
Current planning controls already allow council to consider heights up to 15 metres across the commercial zoned parts of this Precinct.
Randwick City Council will submit the revised draft Local Environment Plan to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in due course.
SCHOOL BUS SAFETY
On 22 May 2012 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice regarding school bus safety. The Minister for Transport provided the following response:
I am advised:
No.
ALCOHOL ADVERTISING
On 23 May 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier and Attorney General, a question without notice regarding alcohol advertising. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised:
Ensuring the responsible sale and consumption of alcohol is a priority for the New South Wales Government, and we have undertaken a range of measures to tackle alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour, including the "Three strikes and you're out" disciplinary scheme, which commenced on 1 January 2012.
As advertising is subject to both State and Commonwealth laws and traverses State and Territory boundaries, alcohol advertising requires a national response to be most effective. New South Wales is committed to working with the Commonwealth and other States and Territories to ensure that alcohol products are advertised appropriately.
ABORIGINAL HOUSING OFFICE BOARD
On 23 May 2012 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Women, a question without notice regarding the Aboriginal Housing Office Board. The Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Women, provided the following response:
The Minister for Family and Community Services has advised that the current membership of the Aboriginal Housing Office board is being refreshed. Ms Michelle Craig has been appointed as chairperson. Statewide recruitment action is being undertaken in relation to the other board members.
The Aboriginal Housing Office is now part of the Department of Family and Community Services. The department is focusing on public sector reforms and service delivery improvements with the aim of working towards a more unified department. Senior appointments are being considered within this context.
HERBICIDE RESISTANCE
On 23 May 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding herbicide resistance. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
Some key weed species such as serrated tussock and perennial ryegrass are showing resistance to the permitted herbicides fluoropropane and Glyphosate. However, on a landscape-scale, there are relatively few confirmed herbicide resistance cases, despite herbicides being used for many years.
The Department of Primary Industries and its agronomists and scientists work closely with farmers and land managers in developing and promoting best practice weed control. Wide adoption of these practices will delay or prevent the development of herbicide resistance in key weed species.
This year the Department of Primary Industries funded vital herbicide resistance research to trial a suite of alternative herbicides for the purposes of registering more effective chemicals for the control of serrated tussock and other priority perennial grasses.
VICTIMS COMPENSATION
On 23 May 2012 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a question without notice regarding victims compensation. The Minister for Justice provided the following response:
A person who has been convicted of or suspected of committing an offence can lodge an application for compensation. However, where it is identified that the application relates to an incident where the applicant contributed to the incident, including through past criminal activity, the application can be dismissed or the amount of the award reduced pursuant to section 30 of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996.
I have been advised that statistics cannot be provided in relation to how much of the reported $63 million paid out by the Victims Compensation Tribunal last year was paid to known criminals.
13612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
On 24 May 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice regarding scientific literacy. The Minister for Education provided the following response:
I am aware of the report Health of Australian Science.
The report indicates that Australia has performed well in scientific literacy in comparison with other countries.
The report indicates that participation rates are a significant factor in increasing scientific literacy, and that participation rates for science in secondary schools across Australia are falling.
However, New South Wales is leading the country in science enrolments for Year 12 students. Since 2001, there has been a 21 per cent increase in enrolments for the combined science courses implemented in all New South Wales schools.
The New South Wales Government is implementing a number of strategies to increase scientific literacy in New South Wales secondary schools. These include:
• developing a new Science K-10 Syllabus with an emphasis on placing students at the centre of scientific inquiry
• emphasising scientific literacy and improving science teaching in primary and secondary schools through professional learning and resources
• using data from the national science literacy testing [NAPSL] to inform approaches to teaching scientific literacy
• using Essential Secondary Science Assessment [ESSA] data in schools to improve science teaching and learning.
The Department of Education and Communities also collaborates with universities to increase awareness of and encourage further study in scientific disciplines at university level. Examples include:
• Science and Maths Exposed, which is held in collaboration with the University of Western Sydney in Science Week each year for secondary students. This event features career talks from practising scientists and educational displays about scientific disciplines at university. The 2011 event had over 1,000 student participants
• Women in Science, which is held in collaboration with Macquarie University and encourages young women to choose science as a career option. Over 700 students attended in 2011
• the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New South Wales also provides a work experience program for students interested in career pathways in science. This program has doubled the intake of students for work experience in the last 12 months.
Local career expos also provide opportunities for students through a focus on industries that employ scientists. Examples of expos include:
• Tamworth Agricultural Careers Expo
• Careers in Agriculture (Riverina)
• Health Careers Expo (Coffs Harbour).
WIND FARMS
On 24 May 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Trade and Investment, and Minister for Regional Infrastructure, a question without notice regarding wind farms. The acting Minister for Trade and Investment provided the following response:
I have referred the above question to the Hon. Brad Hazzard, MP, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who has provided the following answer:
I am aware of issues raised by various members of the community about the potential impacts of wind farms.
The New South Wales Department of Health advises there is no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects. Notwithstanding I have requested ongoing monitoring of any evidence based information in that regard.
I am aware the Department of Defence wrote to the proponents of the Eden Wind Farm.
The New South Wales Government does not consider it appropriate to place a moratorium on wind farms. The Government will instead provide an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure the range of potential impacts of wind farm proposals are avoided or mitigated.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13613
FOX AND WILD DOG BOUNTIES
On 29 May 2012 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding fox and wild dog bounties. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
The Minister for Primary Industries is aware of the devastating effects of wild dogs and foxes, not only on livestock but on wildlife. The New South Wales Government is committed to strategic, integrated and effective control programs that involve the use of the range of control techniques, including aerial baiting, ground baiting, trapping and shooting.
The Minister for Primary Industries is familiar with the bounty system in Victoria. There was a bounty operating in New South Wales many years ago under the former Pastures Protection Act 1934. The New South Wales experience was that bounties did not significantly assist in reducing the wild dog population as a whole and tended to attract resources away from the other control techniques.
The national Vertebrate Pests Committee, the national body providing direction on vertebrate pest management, recommended the phasing out or abolition of existing bounties in the mid 1970s.
The present application of resources to strategic and co-ordinated programs delivered in conjunction with local wild dog affected farmers and Wild Dog Associations is considered to be providing a high level of effective control on the landscape scale. In addition, the publication soon of the New South Wales Wild Dog management strategy will provide an important benchmark for all stakeholders.
COAL SEAM GAS MINISTERIAL TASK FORCE
On 29 May 2012 the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding the coal seam gas ministerial task force. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised:
There is no ministerial task force on coal seam gas. However, relevant Ministers have met on an as needs basis to drive the implementation of the Government's strategic regional land use policy.
SHARK PROTECTION
On 29 May 2012 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding shark protection. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
The great and scalloped hammerhead sharks were recently added to the threatened species schedules of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 by the Fisheries Scientific Committee. This listing means that both species are now protected from commercial and recreational fishing within the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Government.
The Department of Primary Industries is currently working with commercial and recreational fishing sectors, and the post-harvest sector to make them aware of the changes and the implications of the listings.
With respect to the independent review of New South Wales commercial fisheries, the Government is in the process of preparing a detailed response. As my colleague the Hon. Duncan Gay aptly stated at the time the question was asked, the review and reform program is focussed on improving the long term viability of the commercial fishing industry. I am confident that in doing so the reform process will also provide enhanced confidence that our commercial fisheries are being sustainably managed.
KIDNEY DISEASE
On 29 May 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding kidney disease. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
The New South Wales Government is committed to keeping people healthy and out of hospital through a focus on wellness and illness prevention in the community and the promotion of healthy lifestyles. This includes working to reduce smoking and risk drinking, improving nutrition and increasing physical activity across the population of New South Wales. In combination, these healthier lifestyle changes can assist people to avoid chronic diseases such as kidney disease, strokes, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers.
Specifically the New South Wales Government provides:
• The Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service to provide advice and coaching in relation to healthy lifestyles to the adult population.
• Social marketing campaigns to prevent and reduce tobacco-related harm and educate and motivate people to quit smoking.
• The New South Wales Quitline, a best practice smoking cessation telephone counselling service.
• Quit for New Life to support the delivery of smoking cessation care to pregnant Aboriginal women and their families.
13614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
In addition, the Kidney Health Check: Promoting the Early Detection and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease Policy Directive promotes the early detection and management of chronic kidney disease. The policy aims to optimise existing contacts with at risk patients in hospital settings in order to prevent progression to end stage kidney disease. If disease is detected, a primary care referral is made, highlighting the importance of treating the condition in order to encourage remission and regression of the disease.
BROTHELS
On 29 May 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier and the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, a question without notice regarding brothels. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast, provided the following response:
The Land and Environment Court's decision in the case referred to was made under the current planning system in New South Wales. Under this system, brothels and restricted premises are considered to be a land use which is only permitted in areas identified in a council's local environment plan and for which development approval must be obtained from the local council. Like any other land use, there is a right of appeal against a council's determination of a development application to the Land and Environment Court. The New South Wales Government is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the State's planning system.
The Government has also committed to improving the way brothels are regulated and has asked the Department of Premier and Cabinet to lead the development of options to implement this commitment. The department will be assisted in its work by an inter-agency working party overseen by the Special Minister of State, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, MP.
LOCAL SCHOOLS, LOCAL DECISIONS PROGRAM
On 30 May 2012 Dr John Kaye asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice regarding the Local Schools, Local Decisions program. The Minister for Education provided the following response:
I refer you to the detailed answer and information provided by the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, in the Legislative Council on 30 May.
RIVER RED GUM NATIONAL PARKS
On 30 May 2012 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding the river red gum national parks. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
The prices quoted are those that commercial operators are charging the public for commercially available firewood. I understand that the price increase is primarily related to the impacts of recent rainfall and flooding on firewood supply.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] has a domestic firewood program that operates in Riverina River Red Gum national parks which is based on the program previously run by Forests NSW. The number of permits issued to collect firewood are at a similar level to those of previous years. Some areas that were available for collection in previous years have been under water for many months and some vehicle access routes continue to be under water.
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES REGIONAL SERVICES
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Adam Searle asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding the Department of Primary Industries regional services. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
A review process is currently underway following the recommendations of the Ryan review. The Department of Primary Industries is working with key agencies and stakeholders to develop a whole of government response to the Ryan review's recommendations. A formal stakeholder consultation plan has been incorporated in this process.
In order to maintain its relevance the Department of Primary Industries needs to adapt to ensure alignment with an increasingly sophisticated farming sector. Electronic information delivery has been a component of New South Wales Department of Primary Industries' extension service for many years providing valuable, round-the-clock information. Electronic platforms are becoming more portable and capable of providing detailed, on-site assistance. It is likely that New South Wales Department of Primary Industries will exploit improved technology to provide a better service to its clients.
HOSPITAL BEDS
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding hospital beds. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
I am advised:
Service Agreements between the Ministry of Health and each local health district and speciality networks outlines the volume of patient activity required. This means that individual districts and networks, working with local communities and clinicians, will determine how resources should be allocated for better patient outcomes, for example towards in-patient beds or for out of hospital care packages.
The ministry has developed and implemented a patient flow portal system to assist hospitals across New South Wales to manage their hospital level capacity in a patient focused, expedient, efficient and effective manner.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13615
HASTIE GROUP LIMITED
On 31 May 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, a question without notice regarding Hastie Group Limited. The Minister for Finance and Services provided the following response:
I have been advised by the Department of Finance and Services that it does not have any current contracts with the Hastie Group.
LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL SCHEME
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Sophie Cotsis asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice regarding the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme. The Minister for Local Government provided the following response:
Successful applicants for funding from the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme will be announced in mid to late July. A summary table of all successful projects will be made available on the Department of Local Government website.
The assessment panel has an independent chair and comprises senior representatives from Division of Local Government (a division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet), NSW Treasury, and Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
MURRUMBIDGEE REGULATED RIVER WATER SHARING PLAN
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding the Murrumbidgee regulated river water sharing plan. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
The Government supports issuing the supplementary water access licences for the three areas of the Lowbidgee being Nimmie-Caira, Redbank North and Redbank South. This category of licence reflects the nature of the historical Lowbidgee access.
Proposed licence shares are based on the maximum recorded historical diversion from the Maude and Redbank weirs for each of the three areas of the Lowbidgee, since the last major augmentation occurred in 1980. The basis for setting the Lowbidgee entitlement shares is consistent with the approach taken for the conversion of "off-allocation" water use to supplementary access licences in the Murrumbidgee Regulated River water source.
The proposal to recognise historical diversions to all areas of the Lowbidgee as licensed entitlement is consistent with the purpose for which these diversions have historically been made, which is for flood control and flood irrigation. It also provides for cost recovery consistent with the requirements of the National Water Initiative.
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Disability Services, a question without notice regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Minister for Disability Services provided the following response:
The non-government disability sector workforce is expected to grow by approximately 30 per cent over the next five years under the Government's record investment in Stronger Together 2.
Ageing, Disability and Home Care is investing in a range of strategies to strengthen the disability sector workforce to address the on-going challenge of staff shortages and planning effectively for an ageing workforce.
Since 2007 Ageing, Disability and Home Care has been working in partnership with National Disability Services [NDS] NSW to implement and manage the workforce recruitment strategy.
The workforce recruitment strategy aims to attract new employees to the care sector and is targeted at three primary groups within the community: parents returning to work, education leavers and career changers. It also targets potential employees in Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
The objectives of the workforce recruitment strategy are:
• to raise the profile of the disability and community care sectors;
• increase the size of the workforce available to the sectors and;
• to attract the right types of workers to deliver quality services.
carecareers combines a staffed careers centre and an internet based recruitment portal with multimedia marketing to provide a unique attraction and recruitment program for not-for-profit non-government disability and community care organisations in New South Wales. This portal is dedicated to community care and disability services recruitment.
projectABLE began in March 2010 as a work experience and training scheme designed to inspire students to engage in an experiential program with a service provider and ultimately attract more young people into the sector.
13616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
In 2011, projectABLE was extended to university students; with 1,000 New South Wales Allied Health University students invited to participate in the projectABLE Allied Health University Challenge. The university challenge aimed to engage students via an online challenge, inspiring them to think creatively about the sector and to consider the care sector as a professional career destination.
Aboriginal Jobs Together: is a two-year (2011–2013) cross-agency/cross-sector workforce development initiative led by Aboriginal Affairs, established to increase Aboriginal employment in the non-government sector.
In early 2011, Ageing, Disability and Home Care contributed funding to the project, in addition to contributions from NSW Treasury, the Department of Education and Training [DET], Community Services [CS] and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR].
Utilising the Ageing, Disability and Home Care contribution, Aboriginal Affairs contracted National Disability Services to establish traineeships and cadetships for 110 Aboriginal people in up to 30 disability and community care organisations.
HUNTER PETROL PRICES
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Peter Primrose asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for the Hunter, representing the Premier, a question without notice regarding Hunter petrol prices. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for the Hunter, provided the following response:
I am advised:
Fuel prices in Australia are not regulated and are subject to the competitive forces operating in the market, with suppliers free to set their own price. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] has three main roles in relation to the petrol industry: enforcing the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010; monitoring the petrol industry; and informing the public about the petrol industry.
In its 2011 monitoring of the Australian petroleum industry report, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission noted that petrol prices in regional areas are often higher due to greater transport costs, lower turnover and in some cases lower levels of competition.
In view of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's responsibilities, the honourable member should address any further questions regarding this issue to the Commonwealth.
As the consumer protection regulator in New South Wales, Fair Trading can and does take action against traders who breach the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law or the Petrol Information Standard in the Fair Trading Regulation 2007.
The standard mandates that price boards at petrol stations be positioned and lit in a way that can be seen by motorists approaching the petrol station at any time it is open for business and display the price per litre of petrol. The standard is designed to increase transparency and disclosure by petrol stations on the price of fuel.
NATIONAL PARKS
On 31 May 2012 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding national parks. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
The New South Wales reserve system is almost three times the size of that of Tasmania, and contains a greater proportion of high visitation urban and coastal national parks and reserves, a smaller relative proportion of wilderness area, a much greater lineal boundary and an asset base which is valued at more than five times the value of assets in the Tasmanian parks and reserve system.
HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS
On 12 June 2012 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding hunting in national parks. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
The 79 reserves that have been identified for consideration for volunteer pest control programs will undergo detailed planning and operational assessment to ensure the Government's decision is implemented in a way that is safe for staff and visitors, and helps to control feral animals. This will be undertaken in the six months before the legislative amendments come into force.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
On 12 June 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding coastal management. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
1. The Ministerial Taskforce is currently developing options for consideration by the New South Wales Government to improve the management of risks from coastal hazards.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13617
2. As Minister for the Environment, I chair the taskforce, which includes the Deputy Premier, the Hon. Andrew Stoner, MP; the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, MP; the Minister for the Central Coast, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, MP; and the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Don Page, MP.
3. No, as the New South Wales Government has not developed any proposed legislative changes at this stage. The Local Government Association will be consulted on any proposed changes.
M5 WEST WIDENING PROJECT
On 12 June 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Roads and Ports a question without notice regarding the M5 West widening project. The Minister for Roads and Ports provided the following response:
I am advised:
The New South Wales Government committed to start one of Sydney's missing motorway links in its first term, with the appropriate project to be identified by Infrastructure NSW. The projects to be considered by Infrastructure NSW are the M4 extension, the M2 to F3 Link, the M5 East expansion, and the F6 extension.
Infrastructure NSW is due to recommend the first priority motorway project later this year and will release the State Infrastructure Strategy in September.
The most likely option for increasing the capacity of the M5 East tunnel is tunnel duplication. This option, compared with a surface road, would minimise environmental and community impacts.
M5 East tunnel duplication would also provide the opportunity to upgrade the air quality management system and provide greatly improved air quality within the tunnels.
The M5 West widening is due to commence shortly and will be constructed above ground.
SOUTHERN RIVERINA TOURISM PLAN
On 13 June 2012 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding the Southern Riverina tourism plan. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
A contractor has been appointed to develop the concept and site plans to support the visitation initiatives in the Moira Lakes area. Preliminary site plans have been prepared and are being refined following recent on-site inspections.
At Yanga Lake, some facilities available for use at the proposed location for kayak launch and retrieval have been constructed. Facilities for kayak launching at this location will be completed this financial year.
WILD DOG CONTROL
On 13 June 2012 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding wild dog control. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
I am aware of calls by the New South Wales Farmers Association for increased funding of wild dog control programs.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] remains committed to implementing co-operative wild dog plans, involving a range of techniques, in order to minimise the impact of wild dog attacks on livestock.
To this end, National Parks and Wildlife Service undertakes a large number of strategic and responsive wild dog control programs wherever wild dogs are a problem near parks. All National Parks and Wildlife Service works to control wild dogs are carried out in partnership with the local Livestock Health and Pest Authority and land owners, as part of the wild dog control plan which operates across the whole landscape.
For 2012-13, National Parks and Wildlife Service does not expect to reduce the amount spent on pest and weed management.
WASTE AND ENVIRONMENT LEVY
On 14 June 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding the waste and environment levy. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
Achieving the 2014 recycling targets has been identified as a priority action for the O'Farrell Government under Goal 23 in New South Wales 2021: A plan to make New South Wales number one. The waste levy is the key market-based tool used in New South Wales and many other jurisdictions around the world to drive waste avoidance and greater recycling. The levy is an important tool to make recycling cost competitive against landfill disposal.
13618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The levy has driven significant improvements in recycling and substantial investment in recycling infrastructure. In 2008/09, New South Wales residents and businesses recycled approximately 9.5 million tonnes of waste, nearly 60 per cent of that generated. This is an increase from a recycling rate of just 45 per cent in 2002-03.
The O'Farrell Government is committed to ensuring that the levy is operating effectively to help increase investment in waste infrastructure, increase recycling and reduce waste to landfill. The international consultancy firm, KPMG was commissioned to undertake an independent and comprehensive review into the operation of the levy.
The review will provide the Government with a strong evidence base to bring forward a new waste and recycling agenda that delivers economic, employment and environmental benefits for local communities, and provides greater incentives to invest in new recycling infrastructure.
Under the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005, community service organisations can receive exemptions from the waste levy. Exemptions are granted for waste collected from unsaleable and unusable 'donations' received by community service organisations.
The Government will carefully consider the levy review findings.
MARINE PARKS
On 14 June 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question without notice regarding marine parks. The Minister for Primary Industries provided the following response:
I am advised that economic effects of the final marine reserves proposal on commercial fishing are being estimated by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, with State agency input and that a final report is scheduled for release in July 2012.
The New South Wales Government is unable to veto the proposal as it concerns marine reserves in areas under Commonwealth jurisdiction outside State waters.
The New South Wales Government has made it clear that it is committed to implementing a marine parks policy that balances conservation and sustainable use, is evidence based and delivers tangible results. We also acknowledge the benefits of effective and coordinated marine management across jurisdictions. In recent times New South Wales has tried, with very limited success, to work cooperatively with the Commonwealth Government on the Oceans Policy and marine bioregional plans. It was very frustrating to learn of the details of the final temperate east Commonwealth marine reserves proposal through the media. I am told that New South Wales officials made enquiries with the Commonwealth on the day prior to the release but were kept in the dark.
COAL AND COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION
On 14 June 2012 the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Treasurer, a question without notice regarding coal and coal seam gas exploration. The Treasurer provided the following response:
The draft strategic regional land use plans for the Upper Hunter and the New England North West were publicly exhibited for over nine weeks between 8 March 2012 and 14 May 2012.
Following the public exhibition of the draft plans a number of submissions were received and are currently being considered.
Full details of the strategic regional land use policy will be released after consideration by Cabinet.
NARRABRI SHIRE HUNTING
On 19 June 2012 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Tourism, a question without notice regarding Narrabri shire hunting. The Minister for Tourism provided the following response:
This question should be directed to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Robyn Parker, MP, as the matters raised fall within her portfolio responsibilities.
PUBLIC HOUSING RENTS
On 19 June 2012 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, a question without notice regarding public housing rents. The Minister for Family and Community Services provided the following response:
Social housing providers in New South Wales included the large family supplement and the income support supplement as assessable income for rent setting purposes under previous Labor governments. From March 2013, carbon tax compensation will be regularly paid and will be included as assessable income.
There are no plans to include other existing support payments as assessable income.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13619
THE STAR CASINO
On 19 June 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding The Star casino. The Attorney General provided the following response:
I am advised:
This is not a matter falling within my portfolio and the questions should be directed to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts.
POLICE DRUG SAFETY MEASURES
On 19 June 2012 Mr David Shoebridge asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a question without notice regarding police drug safety measures. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services provided the following response:
I am advised the police handbook sets out guidance to local area commands on the management of exhibits, including risk management associated with storage and handling. The NSW Police Force promotes the establishment of health and safety committees in every command, whose responsibilities include assessing and managing locally identified risks associated with exhibits.
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN
On 20 June 2012 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business, a question without notice regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business, provided the following response:
I have said this many times: New South Wales will not accept a plan from Canberra that is not balanced and does not address the impacts on rural communities.
However, the New South Wales Government is currently sticking to its commitment of working with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Commonwealth and the other States to try to develop a plan that is a good plan— one that is realistic, one that can work, and one that is fair.
This stance is happening through the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council process. As a council, we have advised the Murray-Darling Basin Authority of the aspects that need to be changed to the latest draft of the Plan.
Ultimately, the Federal Minister will decide on the final basin plan.
COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION
On 20 June 2012 the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice regarding coal seam gas exploration. The Minister for Resources and Energy provided the following response:
The member refers to a pond which was recently approved by Richmond Valley Council and is currently under construction by Metgasco. Council is entitled to approve the construction of dams.
The New South Wales Government has not approved the construction or use of this pond for the storage or evaporation of coal seam gas waste water.
The Member should direct any questions regarding the approval of the dam to Richmond Valley Council as the approval authority.
PALLIATIVE CARE
On 20 June 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding palliative care. The Minister for Health provided the following response:
In the 2012-2013 budget the Government has allocated $20 million over four years in enhanced funding for palliative care services across New South Wales.
Palliative care funding is not allocated by diagnosis. Any patient requiring specialist palliative care is entitled to receive that care. NSW Health is working to improve access to specialist palliative care for people with non-cancer diagnoses with a specific strategy outlined in the Palliative Care Development Planning Framework 2011-2014.
HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS
On 21 June 2012 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, a question without notice regarding hunting in national parks. The Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, provided the following response:
Yes.
The New South Wales Government's Visitor Economy Taskforce, as part of its terms of reference, has been tasked with considering nature-based tourism in the development of a strategy to double overnight visitor expenditure by 2020. The Taskforce has taken into account the work of the New South Wales Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks and the recommendations from its nature-based tourism reference group.
In terms of visitor safety precautions, this question should be directed to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Robyn Parker, MP, as the matters raised fall within her portfolio.
13620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
DHARAWAL NATIONAL PARK
On 21 June 2012 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice regarding the Dharawal National Park. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:
I am advised as follows:
The Government has allocated $686,000 in capital funding for Dharawal National Park over four years, from 2011 to 2015. This is part of the Government's $1 million commitment for establishing the park.
The capital allocation of $107,000 for 2011-12 was spent:
• to upgrade a fire trail crossing over O'Hares Creek;
• to design, manufacture and install national park signs and interpretation shelters at key entry points;
• on environmental surveys and assessments to enable visitor facility construction;
• on engineering designs and materials for a proposed disabled access lookout at Wedderburn; and
• on engineering designs for a new walking track at Maddens Falls.
I will consider proposals for expenditure of the remaining funds on facilities in the park from the community, as part of the plan of management process.
Questions without notice concluded.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS
Membership
The PRESIDENT: I have received the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
Mr PRESIDENT
The Legislative Assembly desires to inform the Legislative Council that Paul Gerard Lynch has been nominated to serve as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
Legislative Assembly SHELLEY HANCOCK 14 August 2012 Speaker
Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Report: Transition Support for Students with Additional or Complex Needs and Their Families
Debate resumed from 12 June 2012.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.03 p.m.]: As The Greens member on the Standing Committee on Social Issues I speak in support of the many recommendations arising from the report entitled "Transition Support for Students with Additional or Complex Needs and Their Families." I begin by thanking the Hon. Niall Blair for his excellent chairmanship during this inquiry. Throughout the hearings of the committee he conducted himself with great integrity and maturity and I think he is a fabulous Chair. I thank my fellow committee members for their consideration of the issues at hand. I also thank the committee staff, Rachel Simpson, Lisa Scheikowski and Theresa McMichael. I make specific mention of Theresa McMichael who, I understand, pulled together a lot of the draft report.
The committee undertook several site visits, including a fantastic trip to Dubbo. We spent a morning visiting Orana Heights Public School to observe some of the support classes. We saw how students with additional or complex learning needs at that school were supported. We spoke with staff members about how those students effectively transition between different levels of education and different educational settings. I thank Mission Australia Dubbo, which I believe generously made its meeting room available to us for the day. We had a roundtable comprising various stakeholders and the committee found it to be an informative session, particularly the information from the clients from Westhaven, who told us about their work. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13621
Transition periods for any student are often difficult but we heard about the difficulty of transitioning between different stages of education, different levels and education settings for students with disabilities and students with additional or complex learning needs. Just over three of every four students with a disability in New South Wales are enrolled in a public school. Committee members heard quite a bit about the responsibility that the public education system has for students with disabilities and how fantastic the public education system is in ensuring that all students, regardless of their disability, have access to full education.
The New South Wales Government advised the committee that in 2011 there were 35,000 students with confirmed disability in New South Wales government schools. That is 4.5 per cent of all students in the public system. The New South Wales Government also informed the committee that the number of students with a disability in New South Wales public schools increased by 20 per cent between 2005 and 2010, including—and this is a shocking but perhaps not surprising increase—a 165 per cent increase in the number of students diagnosed with autism and a 75 per cent increase in students with a mental health diagnosis since 2003.
I will return to the load that the public education system takes on with these students. We heard that transitions were particularly harrowing for young people with additional or complex learning needs and that it is hard also for parents and families. Access to a transition plan and a good support network within the school— the school from which they transition and the school into which they transition—made a significant difference to already vulnerable students who become more vulnerable as they enter new settings. The Greens support any measures that will ensure students have access to transition plans. We support the recommendations in the report for all students to have transition plans. I refer to one aspect that resonated in particular with me. The committee heard from the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre, which said that nowhere near enough support was provided to students from refugee families who start school. Some do not even gain access to intensive English classes and go straight into school.
The committee heard that high school students can receive English tuition through intensive English centres; however, with the exception of some students in year 6, primary school-age students are not offered the same opportunity. The Greens strongly support recommendation 13 in the report: that the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities provide ongoing funding and support to establish transition programs for newly arrived refugee children and young people such as the Beginning Well school pilot. The committee heard from the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre that the kids are literally arriving, receiving no transition support and having to attend school. One can imagine how problematic that can be for the newly arrived students and others.
Another issue that the committee continued to hear about was that schools were turning away students. The Primary Principals Association told us that it does not turn away any eligible child that is located within the school boundaries. Parents told the committee that some independent schools were turning away students with disabilities. This was refuted by the Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales which said that it would turn away a child only if it caused unjustifiable hardship for the school to accept that child. That is an important point to make because the disability standards for education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 state that any education provider must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a student with a disability. An adjustment is a measure or action taken to assist a student with a disability to participate in education training on the same basis as other students. The measure or action might be a wheelchair ramp, modifying toilets or looking at specific hearing or visual aids.
Disability standards are provided for unjustifiable hardship but many of the witnesses said to us that the standards were not clear and clearer guidelines needed to be developed. Some schools are turning away students with disabilities because they are claiming that it would cause those schools unjustifiable hardship. I hazard a guess that some of the schools could afford to accommodate students with disabilities by making the necessary adjustments. It would provide for students over the long term and for the next students that potentially have that same disability in two years time. The adjustment is a long-term investment. The Greens support disability standards offering clearer guidelines.
I note what Dr John Kaye said about Local Schools, Local Decisions and giving 70 per cent of a school's budget to the school's principal to manage may make it harder for the committee's excellent recommendations to be implemented. I support what was said by Dr John Kaye and it represents The Greens position. Parliamentary committees go to a lot of trouble to conduct hearings and to write reports, which leads me to tell the House about the feedback I received from a friend of mine who has a child with high functioning autism. I happened to mention to her and to her husband that this report had been produced. She was very interested in it so I sent to her the link to this report. When I caught up with her a few weeks later she mentioned 13622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
how useful the report had been. She and her husband read through the report and then sent the link to different friends of theirs they had met through various community groups that supported parents with autistic children. They have found it valuable. It is good to get feedback like that and to know that the report is already proving to be valuable. I congratulate once again the committee secretariat on its work on this report.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.13 p.m.]: I begin by congratulating the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, the Hon. Niall Blair—the member's first inquiry in his position as Chair. The Hon. Niall Blair is an enthusiastic and energetic Chair and brings a range of experience and ideas to the House and to the committee. Every election refreshes the Parliament and the Hon. Niall Blair has done a wonderful job of refreshing the committee. He has taken great care to ensure that regional considerations are taken into account. The entire committee, and in particular the Hon. Mick Veitch and I, appreciate the approach taken by the Hon. Niall Blair to his work. I thank the other members of the committee who have done a fabulous job working together on key issues in a united way.
I felt I let my colleagues down because I was on leave for most of this inquiry. I was there at the commencement of the inquiry to talk about its parameters. My colleagues the Hon. Helen Westwood, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, the Hon. Cate Faehrmann and the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones have done an outstanding job on this report, as has the committee secretariat. To take up the theme of an earlier speaker, one of the reasons that Legislative Council committee reports are so highly prized is that a great deal of background information and preparation go into them and we end up with fantastic background information papers on the current state of issues in New South Wales. The statistics and overview of demand for services for students with additional or complex needs is well documented in this report, as are the statistics about what is available and what the Department of Health can offer and hopes to offer in the future.
I commend the Minister for Education the Hon. Adrian Piccoli. As a brand new Minister he had the foresight to identify this as the first issue he wanted the parliamentary committee to investigate. That says something about the character of the man and his understanding of the importance and complexity of these issues. An upper House bipartisan approach was definitely the right path to take. The key issues examined by the committee included education transitions and support. This occurs when students move between classes and schools in different settings. It is challenging for young people who often can take a long time to find their feet. They have the transition from home and because of the way the education system is staggered multiple transitions need to be made during that period. It is not just from school to school; it is from room to room and it involves new teachers and, as we all learnt earlier this year, transport arrangements. All those things need to be carefully planned with the best interests of the young person in mind.
Access and transfer of information are critical issues in education. With these young people we need to work across a range of health and educational services. It is especially challenging on the far North Coast because we have two systems operating across State borders. The preschool for children with disabilities is located in Coolangatta, Queensland, and the primary school is located in Tweed Heads, New South Wales. In order to get the approvals and funding that are needed to participate in those schools, one needs approval not only from local communities and local schools but also from the Department of Education in Queensland and the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. The paperwork is different for each department which means that one needs reports from different doctors which duplicates the entire process. One family that had gone through this process to obtain enrolment for a child had to repeat the process to obtain access to transport for the child because the buses operated across State borders. Having gone through that trauma and difficulty and having reached an endpoint I am sorry to say that the Department of Education in Queensland lost the file and told the family that it had to start again.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3
Report: Rail Infrastructure Project Costing in New South Wales
Debate resumed from 12 June 2012.
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [5.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank those who have spoken to the report, the Hon. John Ajaka and the Hon. Cate Faehrmann, and acknowledge and thank all committee members for their involvement in the inquiry and particularly their interest in delivering cost efficiency and 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13623
increased competition to this State. This inquiry was about providing value for money for the taxpayers of New South Wales. I would like to place on record my acknowledgement that building rail infrastructure is an expensive exercise. Having said that, we know that government must strive to contain costs wherever possible, whilst at the same time delivering more and improved services. Ensuring accurate cost estimation for major transport infrastructure projects is vitally important—a matter that this Government takes very seriously. If a project is underestimated it runs the risk of being delayed or of funds being taken from other areas. In addition, if a project is overestimated, it runs the risk of preventing other projects from being developed or, worse, not being constructed.
During my opening remarks I commented in detail on the various recommendations on the role of Transport for NSW. So in my reply I will comment briefly on comments made about the role of Treasury in the process. Treasury advised the committee that it was not directly involved in the project costing process but, rather, provided guidelines to other government agencies for the preparation of business cases. In addition, a project must pass through a gateway process. Unfortunately, the committee received limited information about the process, and therefore felt that further investigation by Treasury, particularly into the gateway methodology used in other States, should be undertaken to further improve the process. Furthermore, the committee felt the role of Treasury in the final cost estimate process was confusing and could benefit from greater clarity. The committee accepts that estimating the cost of a project is difficult, not only in New South Wales but across all jurisdictions, and acknowledges and supports the work undertaken in Australia to develop best practice cost estimation methods. In addition, I also acknowledge the work of Transport for NSW in establishing a Cost Estimating Centre, in addition to establishing a library of project cost data. This library assists Transport for NSW to verify strategic estimates received from external consultants, allowing for more accurate future costing to be developed.
Finally, I will comment on the Ernst and Young benchmarking study and comments made by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann regarding the cost of projects in New South Wales. The Ernst and Young report looked at the cost of building new road and rail projects in New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland over the past six years. The report stressed the importance of comparing similar projects. I place on record that one of the challenges we face in comparing major projects is that such projects are not done on a regular basis, so comparison is sometimes quite difficult. As well, there are not a huge number of similar projects to compare. But in saying that it is accepted that it costs more to build rail infrastructure than to build road infrastructure; and in looking at rail construction it was noted that the analysis involved a range of projects that made it difficult to compare the projects as the cost ranged from $35 million to $74 million.
Although the study found the average cost for rail construction to be higher in New South Wales, the committee was told the average cost had been pushed up by one project and that once this project was removed the average decreased. Furthermore, the national average was slightly deflated due to one project and once this was removed the national average went to $33 million, compared to the New South Wales average of $39 million. It was therefore estimated that the cost of building rail infrastructure in New South Wales was approximately 15 per cent more than elsewhere. Based on this information, the committee agreed that the finding for this inquiry was that it does cost slightly more to build rail infrastructure in New South Wales. All in all, the committee members are in agreement: we all want to ensure that this Government and future governments provide value for money for taxpayers. The recommendations for this inquiry assist in addressing some of the concerns raised by industry and in ensuring the delivery of cost-effective rail infrastructure projects. I look forward to the Government's response. 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 LAW AND JUSTICE
Report: Opportunities to Consolidate Tribunals in New South Wales
Debate resumed from 12 June 2012.
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [5.25 p.m.]: I think on the previous occasion I had got to the stage where we had an enjoyable lunch in Melbourne. Seriously though, I thought this was a very worthwhile inquiry. The conclusions reflect that our visit to Melbourne obviously was about more than a fine lunch; we met with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Victorian system has been in place since 1998. Victoria 13624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
consolidated quite a number of tribunals. Whereas there were some teething problems, as the Chief Judge reminded us, only a year or two later the consolidated tribunals had settled in quite well in the one premises, covering a range of functions previously performed by a number of smaller tribunals. The Victorian system seems to have worked well in both cost and in improving accessibility to the tribunal. We witnessed two or three matters being heard. What struck a number of members of the committee was how accessible the tribunal was and how low was the cost to those using the tribunal.
While in Melbourne we also heard from the legal profession, which was a little more sanguine about the consolidation. The feeling was that the legal professional had been dealt out of it to some small extent. I guess the other side of that coin is that people were not paying the legal fees that perhaps had previously kept some from using the tribunals. All in all, my impression from the Victorian visit was that consolidation of tribunals is very worthwhile, and that is reflected in our report. We left the report reasonably open. We say to the Government that it should go along this path but we leave it to the Government to figure out how many tribunals to consolidate and how to proceed down the path. The message from the committee was that the inquiry was worthwhile. If I did not say so previously, I thank the committee and the staff who organised our activities. I thank in particular our chair, David Clarke, who responded and got the committee going in a very short time and delivered a very worthwhile report.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5
Report: Coal Seam Gas
Debate resumed from 1 May 2012.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [5.29 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in debate on the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on its inquiry entitled "Coal Seam Gas." The inquiry was established on 5 August 2011 under the committee's power to make a self reference to inquire into and report on the environmental, economic and social impacts of coal seam gas activities, including exploration and commercial extraction activities allowable under the New South Wales Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. At this point I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham who brought this agenda to the committee for consideration, as a result of which the committee resolved to undertake the inquiry.
The committee received more than 900 submissions of which, surprisingly, only about 184 were identical statements from individuals. We also heard from many witnesses during the four hearings in Parliament House and the three hearings at Alstonville, Narrabri and Mittagong. The committee also conducted a number of site visits, including visits to Chinchilla in Queensland to look at existing gas fields and to Casino, Kyogle, Taree, Gunnedah, the Pillaga forest, Narrabri and Camden in New South Wales. It was a very interesting and rather complex inquiry. I will not say the inquiry was difficult to chair but it was a highly technical inquiry. I thank the committee secretariat for their ability to put together a comprehensive report and I thank the committee members for their cooperation in the conduct of the hearings. Beverly, Madeleine and Lynn were, as always, a pleasure to work with, and I thank Rhia and Donna for putting together a highly technical and difficult report. I also put on the record my appreciation to Hansard because, as I said, it was a highly technical report and Hansard had to work very, very hard in many cases to be able to transcribe some of the witnesses' complex testimony.
Given the highly sensitive nature of this inquiry, I am grateful for the way that the committee members cooperated in the conduct of the hearings. At this point I also thank all the witnesses who made time to attend the hearings. It was an extensive inquiry that covered a lot of ground and those witnesses, in their own time and at their own cost, gave the committee valuable insight into how this industry was affecting or could affect their local communities. The report speaks for itself, so I do not intend to read too much into Hansard. The report contains 35 succinct recommendations and in my chair's foreword I open by saying:
I am pleased to present the Committee's report on coal seam gas, which contains 35 recommendations. I urge the Government to implement all of the Committee's recommendations.
That is why we have committees such as this: to provide advice to the Government on complicated issues, to note those considerations and, where possible and in line with government policy, to make sure that those recommendations are implemented. I will read another paragraph from my chair's foreword:
The actions of successive NSW governments also leave room for improvement.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13625
I was referring to the way this particular industry had grown—
Governments have not done enough in the past to provide accessible and factual information about the development of the industry, which has contributed to a high level of alarm amongst communities affected by coal seam gas exploration.
That was probably the single most constant theme throughout all the hearings we held around regional New South Wales. Some committee members commented that some of those community views had been generated by political persuasion. Nevertheless, one cannot expect people to support government policy, particularly on issues that affect them, if they do not know of or do not have the correct information about how that industry or those policy decisions will affect them. Once again I urge the Government to seriously consider the 35 succinct recommendations.
The committee's report also contains, interestingly, four dissenting reports. In fact, there is a dissenting report from every political party represented in the inquiry—except, of course, the Shooters and Fishers Party because I was chairing the inquiry. However, one must realise that the draft that is discussed by the committee is the chair's draft. What I suspect is a first for a committee, given that it was a committee under a conservative government, was that the Liberal Party submitted two dissenting reports. I regard that as a measure of success. If you can get everybody on the committee at some point disagreeing with the chair's draft you have got a pretty good draft.
Once again I thank the committee secretariat for putting the report together in the way they did. I repeat: It was a highly complex and highly technical issue with lots of strange words and concepts, but the committee secretariat managed to put the report together in such a way that the committee was able to understand it. I hope the Government will be able to understand it; I am sure it will. Once again I thank the committee members for their constructive and thorough approach to the inquiry and I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [5.36 p.m.]: I too will be brief, given the time available to me to discuss this very detailed and worthwhile report. It is crucial that people know more about this issue because of the impacts of coal seam gas drilling. To give a brief example, which I will return to later, toxic substances such as lead, arsenic, barium, chromium, uranium, radium, radon and benzene can be mobilised by drilling and fracking activities. I stress "can be". Accordingly, I am using the precautionary principle that is, in fact, the law in New South Wales under the protection of the environment legislation. That legislation requires us by law to consider the precautionary principle. Given the fact that some members in this place seem to think that the "precautionary principle" implies a wish or a desire, again I stress that it is the law in New South Wales as agreed to by both Houses of Parliament.
We are still in the dark when it comes to understanding the effects of coal seam gas production. The National Water Commission has cautioned that "the potential impacts of coal seam gas developments, particularly the cumulative effects of multiple projects, are not well understood". As I said, the committee's report is important because it did what general purpose standing committees are supposed to do. Given that no committee member can ever expect to be an expert about all the matters before us because they are so wide ranging, our job is to assess and ask the questions that members of the public would ask. We ask the experts and we ask people for their views and then we try to come to a position, hopefully on the basis of fair and reasonable consideration of the evidence before us. It is fair to say that the committee members undertook that task and, while there were some disagreements given the complexity of the topic, came to a fair conclusion in the report.
The committee received almost 1,000 submissions, took evidence from 130 witnesses and visited extraction and production sites and nearby communities in Chinchilla in Queensland and Casino, Kyogle, Taree, Gunnedah, Narrabri and Camden in New South Wales. All the submissions, briefs and transcripts and our final report are available on our website. As I said, the committee is not made up of experts; our job is to represent the public and to ask the questions that the public wants asked and then to present those often conflicting views in our report. The report itself is more than 300 pages long and contains 35 recommendations. On the basis of the weight of evidence and despite the disparate political make-up of the members of the committee and a lot of heated debate, I think it is reasonable to say that most members accepted most of the recommendations.
Let us start with the basics. What is coal seam gas? Coal seam gas, also referred to as coal seam methane or coal bed methane, is an unconventional natural gas that occurs naturally within the pores or fractures of coal seams. Coal seams can be found at depths ranging from 300 to 1,000 metres. While coal seam gas is generally at least 95 per cent methane, it also can contain other gases including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and other hydrocarbons other than methane. Coal seam gas is used for industrial and domestic uses, as well as in gas turbines to generate electricity. 13626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The gas in coal seams is held in the micropores of the coal by water pressure. To release the gas, the water must be extracted by drilling a well that reaches down into the coal seam. The coal aquifer is depressurised by pumping out the water and bringing it to the surface. The methane gas diffuses from the micropores and flows through cleats, which are small cracks that occur naturally in the coal. The gas is then processed to remove water and piped to compression plants for injection into gas transmission pipelines. Methane does not dissolve very well in water, so the water and the gas bubbles separate when they reach the well. Often one pipe collects the gas and takes it to the surface, and another pipe brings out the water. This involves a lot of water. For example, total water production from coal seam gas wells in Queensland is already estimated to be around 10,000 megalitres a year. That is enough to fill more than 2,500 Olympic swimming pools, and that is why I think water is a critical consideration in this report.
In August 2011 Australia's proved and provable coal seam gas reserves were estimated to be 38,000 petajoules of which 2,910 petajoules are located in New South Wales. There has been a dramatic increase in petroleum title applications in New South Wales over the past few years, representing exploration work programs valued at up to $30 million a year. The number of petroleum exploration licences in New South Wales has risen from 11 in 1993 to 47 in December last year. More than 20 companies currently hold exploration licences. Given the time available to me I will not go into that, but the report details the various areas of exploration. There is a lot of concern in those areas to ensure that we get it right.
The committee argued that it would be premature for the Government to lift its moratorium on fracking before the chemicals used are tested and a stringent regulatory framework is put in place. The committee recommended that the moratorium on fracking remain in place until the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme concludes its assessment and the New South Wales Government considers any findings. The committee was also concerned that any leaks or spills of fracking fluids or produced water could contaminate water resources. Therefore the committee recommended that the open storage of fracking fluids and produced water be banned.
I know other members will raise their concerns today, but fracking is a major concern for members of the community. A key question is whether coal seam gas development will endanger our water resources. The scientific evidence on this issue is contested. Participants in our inquiry disagreed about the likelihood of the industry leading to contamination of water resources or depletion of water supplies. Many inquiry participants fear that coal seam gas activities could crack aquifers, resulting in aquifer cross-contamination. They also worry that many of the impacts on our water systems will not be evident until decades later, when it is too late to take preventative measures. The fracking process has heightened community concerns around the coal seam gas industry. If even some of the risks to water resources posed by coal seam gas development were realised, the consequences could be disastrous. These include the contamination of water used for drinking and agricultural purposes, as well as the potential to deplete the water supplies available to all water users.
Inquiry participants held very different views on whether we have a good understanding of ground and surface water systems. This understanding is critical if we are to accurately model the potential impacts of coal seam gas activities. When questioned on whether we have a good understanding of what happens below ground, supporters of the industry, such as the coal seam gas companies, tend to claim that we have a good understanding of water systems. On the other hand, numerous inquiry participants insist that more work needs to be done to understand the workings of our water systems. The New South Wales Farmers Association, for example, expressed their concern at the "paucity of groundwater data" and described our ability to manage the impacts of the coal seam gas industry as "grossly inadequate". Other inquiry participants said that while we may have a good understanding of the principles underpinning the operation of ground and surface water systems, more work needs to be done around specific issues such as aquifer interconnectivity.
As a consequence, a number of members expressed concern about proceeding too quickly. For instance, my Labor colleague and I proposed simply that coal seam gas is not cheese: it will not go off if it is left in the ground until we get the science right. We proposed a mechanism for that. Equally, given the nature of production and exploration of coal seam gas, it is important to recognise that the process of exploration is similar to the final stage of production. The only difference is that the wellhead is connected to a pipe which removes the methane gas and takes it away for storage or export. Accordingly, I urge honourable members to look at our dissenting report, which proposes that exploration and production be held over until we get the science right. I thank honourable members for their attention.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [5.46 p.m.]: The coal seam gas inquiry report is comprehensive and comes from the most extensive inquiry conducted in Australia into the emerging coal seam gas or 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13627
unconventional gas industry. I was pleased to work collaboratively with the Hon. Robert Brown and others to initiate and establish the committee. I join with the honourable member in congratulating committee members on participating in an open and thorough way. I also thank the staff, who did a tremendous job coordinating travel across the State. There were an enormous number of meetings with huge numbers of people participating. As has been said, the committee received a thousand submissions and heard from hundreds of witnesses. The meetings were large and could have been difficult to manage, but they were well managed by the chair and committee staff. It was an example of how well we govern in New South Wales. I thoroughly enjoyed the process. I learnt a lot from it, and that is what any inquiry should be about.
The committee has made some good recommendations. I join with the Hon. Peter Primrose in suggesting that we should hasten slowly when it comes to coal seam gas. Some may find the concept of the precautionary principle unpalatable but I think it is prudent. Some would even argue that it is a conservative approach to fully understand this industry before we allow it. A number of recommendations in the report relate to that approach. Due to the limitations of time and the enormous amount of technical information that we had to get across, the socio-economic argument for coal seam gas was not addressed by the inquiry. I do not believe that argument has been properly made. There is still a lot to learn about the realities of coal seam gas and its impact on our environment.
Community involvement in the process was extremely important. Many people saw the inquiry as their first opportunity to have their say on coal seam gas development—an opportunity they had been denied up to that point by the previous Labor Government. I do not agree with all the findings of the report but it identified some of the significant risks associated with coal seam gas. I will read into Hansard the evidence of Dr Stuart Khan, a water expert specialising in risk analysis of water supplies, who said:
When we talk about risk assessment, coming again from experience in the water industry, what we pay close attention to are the low-frequency, high-consequence events. You might have had a number of experienced people attend the inquiry and say: Never in my 15-year career have I heard of this happening. It does not mean that we should not pay careful attention to it.
Dr Khan went on to highlight the importance of managing the potential risks posed by such "low-frequency, high-consequence events". That is the key point in relation to this industry: What if it goes wrong? Recently I returned from the United States of America. I urge Government members and other members of this Parliament to witness what has happened in the United States of America in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. In 125,000 square kilometres there are 25,000 coal seam gas wells. The industry was established in the early 2000s and it is now bankrupt. It is completely abandoned. No-one is working those fields. The wells have discharged billions of litres of salt into the environment. They have salted the rivers and the land and the gas is gone. The production comes and goes so quickly, it is a boom-bust industry like we have never seen before. That is not hysteria. I am not trying to frighten members.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Oh?
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: If that frightens the Hon. Rick Colless, I ask him: Which members of the Government have seen an advanced and mature coal seam gas industry in the United States of America in areas that are coming out of the boom and are well and truly in the bust? In those areas farmers are faced with the legacy of tens of thousands of uncapped bore wells, thousands of kilometres of high-voltage powerlines, transmission lines, pipelines and roads. It is a monumental industry involving tens of billions of dollars. It is one of the largest industrialisations the world has ever seen. Tens of billions of dollars in this industry is proposed in New South Wales.
The report's recommendations go some way towards dealing with that by a moratorium on production licences, a continuation of the ban on fracking, and a ban on some processes, such as the use of evaporation ponds. The recommendations are sensible and reasonable from a committee that was not dominated by one view. A key point to remember is that there were dissenting reports. The only part of the committee's report that concerned me was the dissenting report of Hon. Scot MacDonald, who stated:
It is difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the Coal Seam Gas industry should be developed as quickly as possible.
I understand the sentiment expressed by the honourable member, but has he been to the United States of America? Has he taken his learning further? Has he truly understood the socio-economic case for this industry? Has the Government developed a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of what this industry means? Again and again the industry has said it can coexist and that it can achieve win-wins and balance. It can achieve coexistence in the same way as people coexist with a tumour or a deadly disease. 13628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The Hon. Rick Colless: Oh.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That is exactly the way it is. There is a difference between coexistence and prosperity. The farmers who experience this industry coexist, but they do not prosper. The industry externalises its costs into the lungs of people, as well as into the rivers and the soil of areas in which it operates. That is the reality of coal seam gas and that has been the reality of some of the large extractive industries over the past 200 years. That is the model that this industry—big gas—is purporting to roll out across New South Wales and throughout Australia.
It is clear that the community made the committee's hearings their inquiry. The level of participation and involvement showed that people from all demographics and across all political persuasions really care. The argument has been advanced that this is a green beat-up, but that simply is not true. The Hon. Rick Colless would acknowledge the evidence of so many people turning up to hearings in Taree and Narrabri and so many people from the whole political spectrum writing to the committee to raise their concerns. They did so because they sense, as did Stuart Khan, the implications of a low-frequency, high-consequence event. Despite what the Government may do in a regulatory sense, the reality is that many people simply do not want this industry. They want a renewable energy future, strong regional communities, and sustainable agriculture built on local sustainable industries. They want agricultural land to be protected.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Yet you do not want ethanol.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile should go to the United States and see how ethanol works there. The United States farm bill—what a joke—results in payments of a trillion dollars each four or five years to prop up the agricultural sector. Talk about socialism! The people of New South Wales want all productive land and aquifers protected. As people say, water is the new oil. In a warming and drying continent with increasing populations, water is the new oil. We would be prudent to recognise that and implement the recommendations of the report. The recommendations are sensible and reasonable and allow us to make a decision that will serve the long-term interests of New South Wales, not just the short-term interest of multinational energy companies or the Government's bottom line. The decision to abolish the royalty holiday is a great decision and should be welcomed.
The Hon. Rick Colless: We did that.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I understand that that is one of the key points. I look forward to the Government adopting all the other recommendations.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.56 p.m.]: This is the first committee on which I have served in this Parliament. I, like others, commend the great work done by staff during the course of the committee's inquiry. I learned a lot from this committee. I learned about Walloon coals, aquatards, horizontal drilling and the natural fracturing within coal seams. I also learned about the cynicism of the Australian Labor Party and the two Australian Labor Party members on the committee, the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Greg Donnelly. I had a lot of respect for the Hon. Peter Primrose, who is from the pro-jobs faction of the Left, and the Hon. Greg Donnelly, who is from the Right, which also is pro jobs. I would not describe either of them as tree huggers in any sense of the term, and that showed in their early behaviour. They were all gung-ho for coal seam gas operations at the commencement of the committee, but suddenly their leader, John Robertson, came out against it. The mood changed after that, and the backsliding began.
I also was confronted with the absolute hypocrisy of The Greens over this issue. I will refer to something that a certain Greens member of Parliament said about coal seam gas in the past. On 6 May 2009 Dr John Kaye called for "high-efficiency gas generation". He stated:
Coal must be replaced by a renewable and low-emission options, such as ... hi-efficiency gas generation ...
International best practice is in favour of high-efficiency gas-fired tri-generation systems ... exploiting up to 90 per cent of all the primary energy from burning gas.
On 20 October he said he supported "local generation alternatives". But what did he mean by that? Presumably he meant local gas-fired power stations because in the Echo on 10 December 2009, he stated:
The potential for local gas generation should be factored into any planning for the Far North Coast's energy strategy.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13629
The hypocrisy of The Greens is just amazing. The following year, on 18 March 2010, Dr John Kaye stated:
There is also evidence that TransGrid failed to adequately explore cheaper, lower-impact alternatives such as local generation ...
Once again we see that The Greens will say and do anything to try to push their own policy barrow—whatever they think that is for this particular week. I disagree with just about every recommendation in this report. My dissenting report sums up what the report should have been about, including some basic principles. I suggest that, apart from the Hon. Scot MacDonald, I was the only member who approached this issue from a rights-based policy perspective. I will not repeat the arguments, but I encourage people to read my dissenting report.
This was a very complex issue involving a high degree of technical detail. Much of the opposition to coal seam gas was uninformed, misinformed or simply vexatious. Hippies and other anti-development types want the goodies without paying the price. They are leaching on productive cities for their lifestyles. The other thing that shocked me was the undue deference paid to garbage testimony.
The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Point of order: In the main, members listened to the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham in silence. We would appreciate the same courtesy being extended to the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Cate Faehrmann): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: The testimony given was generally quite poor. We heard that "… water is a living essence. If we cannot understand it and cannot explain it the best we can reach for is to understand … its function." We also heard a sort of mysticism where someone said, "You probably would not have seen the true glory of this place on the route you travelled, but if you went up through the Tweed you would see a one-off geophysical relationship with the light on planet Earth. We are the first sun country. All heavenly bodies rising in the east hit that mountain." Hippie mysticism is all well and good, but it did not add much to the general debate that was taking place. It is wonderful that people have opinions, and people should be able to voice their opinions, but not all opinions are equal in validity.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Cate Faehrmann): Order! I call the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham to order for the first time.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: The oral submissions from the two Aboriginal groups were particularly disappointing. For example, take this:
We talk about how things were formed in our stories and what we have what is called in the Northern Territory the rainbow serpent. In Gomeroi we call him correo, which is the crocodile, but basically the same spirit that goes through. I heard someone ask a question: How do you know where the under-water goes and which way the aquifers flow and how many there are? If you want we can do an aerial picture of where that crocodile went and you will find water everywhere he went underground. We will show you the channels; which way and where the water holes in different areas are where he came up to have a look as he travelled under the ground.
Someone else suggested there was a plan that showed the interconnectivity of all subsurface waterways in Australia. This is a complex scientific issue and here we are wasting our time on Dreamtime stories. What if the Hellenic Council of New South Wales put forward a submission opposing coal seam gas on the ground that it would drain the River Styx and interrupt the flow of dead to the underworld? You would think it mad or at least taking the Mickey if it presented something like that. I could understand if Aboriginal witnesses had said, "White settlement deprived us of our land, areas which we claimed by right of occupation and held by force majeure." I entirely agree with that argument. So why did the Aboriginal witnesses instead present us with these tales? Because that is the mantra of the white leftists who advised them to do so. As I have said before, the white leftists love it when blacks are poor, weak and quaint. They want Aboriginal communities to remain a primitivist's Disneyland. To couch Aboriginal demands for land in terms of inalienable natural law property rights would require leftists to accept that such rights exist, and that is not something that they are willing to do. Instead, they encourage the repetition of Dreamtime stories.
I note how ironic it is that the Left in Australia is ready to mock Christians for their "imaginary friend in the sky" yet genuflect at the first sign of a rainbow serpent, a vomiting frog or a gigantic subterranean crocodile. Let me again put on the record my view: Aborigines were dispossessed of their land by white settlement. Anyone who claims Aboriginal descent should be able to receive full and final compensation—by way of land transfer of vacant Crown land, including national parks if necessary—for that dispossession. But it 13630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
is duplicitous in the extreme for the Left to give Aborigines land but then force it to be locked up. One of our Gomeroi witnesses made it quite clear in his testimony, "We want to develop our land," but the Green Left elitists want Aborigines to be poor and weak with useless land.
Getting back to coal seam gas and mining in general, let me say that our State must exploit our natural resources. Our recent budget is predicated on a housing-led recovery but, as 2UE's Jason Morrison astutely pointed out, Greiner had a housing-led recovery, Carr had two housing-led recoveries—indeed, one of them was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph—Morris Iemma had a housing-led recovery and now we have one. But housing is dead capital. Spain and Ireland are instructive examples of placing all your eggs in a housing-led recovery basket. Conversely, drilling and mining are true wealth creators. The town halls of Bathurst, Ballarat and Bendigo bear testimony to the wealth they create. Yet, the State—and this report is just another example of it—seems to relish putting barriers in the way, at least since the time of Bob Carr. That is what you get when you make a former environment Minister the Premier, I suppose.
I came across the annual report of the Fraser Institute in Canada, which looks at the attractiveness of mining policies in some 93 jurisdictions. New South Wales rates 32 behind the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, New Zealand, Queensland and even Tasmania. That is right: New South Wales is currently ranked worse than Tasmania for mining investment or drilling investment. Tasmania—a paradise for hippies, socialists and anti-growth, anti-development, lentil-munching, crystal-empowered, aura-divining, cheesecloth-wearing nut jobs run by a Green-Left government—is rated higher than New South Wales for favourable conditions for mining investment. Recently Mark Coure and I visited coalmining operations in the Illawarra and met a couple of United States investors. Why would they want to invest here? The truth is that mining is international and miners have more options than dollars. This report proposes greater regulation, greater red tape and higher taxes. Its recommendations should be rejected.
Dr JOHN KAYE [6.06 p.m.]: That was one of the most insulting, disgraceful speeches I have heard in this House for a long time. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is entitled to hold his own opinions on anything, but to impute through a series of lies and twisting of facts and attitudes to other people—
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: The member is casting aspersions on the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. I ask that you remind the member that that is outside the standing orders.
Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I was not casting aspersions on the individual; I was referring to his speech. Not to be able to criticise another member's speech is to take away my right of free speech.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order. The honourable member implied—in fact, he stated—that I lied. I ask him to withdraw.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I withdraw.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Cate Faehrmann): Order! The Dr John Kaye has withdrawn the comment.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I withdraw any implication that the member is a liar; however, I stand by my statement that his speech was insulting, relied on half-truths and was deeply misleading. I will start with what he said about me. He said that on 10 December 2009 and 18 March 2010 I said—and I correctly did say this—that TransGrid's plans for the North Coast did not include consideration of local generation. He then says—and through that leap of logic that can only come from somebody who is so profoundly anti-science that he does not believe in greenhouse—that that must mean I supported gas. Of course, local generation refers to rooftop solar; it refers to wind; it refers to tidal; it refers to a whole range of renewable energy technologies. If you look carefully at what I said on 18 March 2010, that is precisely what I was talking about.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about in 2009?
Dr JOHN KAYE: Likewise on 10 December 2009. On 20 October 2009, about which the member also quoted me, he was quoting me on a speech about gas. I was saying then very clearly that if there was to be a future for gas it had to be in high-efficiency uses, not for base load generation in a central station but for distributed uses. He deliberately misquoted me, as have many members, in order to make a cheap debating point, which I might say to members of The Nationals present—and there is only one, which is interesting—will come back to bite them at the next election. Coal seam gas is a defining moment for The Nationals. Are they 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13631
there for the big multinational corporations that are making massive profits out of this or are they there for their local communities? I believe some members of The Nationals do stand up for their local communities or want to stand up for their local communities, but most members of The Nationals are captured by the large corporations that are calling the shots on coal seam gas.
It comes through in the way they behaved in this report, and their Liberal mates were exactly the same. Right now they are on the electoral crest, partly driven by Labor's behaviour, partly driven by changes in demographic. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time surfing, things happen on the top of a crest and it is a long way to the bottom of the trough—and it happens very quickly. That is what will happen to The Nationals if they do not listen to local communities and continue to behave in this way. This inquiry was set up in response to growing alarm amongst local communities across Nationals-held seats around New South Wales and a few Liberal seats as well, I might add—in the north-west, in the Hunter Valley, on the North Coast and in the Illawarra.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Camden.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Camden, exactly, in the city's south-west. There was huge alarm when the yellow plane flew over. The next thing they know there are applications for exploration leases and the place is then full of coal seam gas drilling. The expectation was for this committee to listen to the community. The best thing about it was that the community was heard. I congratulate those community members who stood up and told it like it was, but the expectation was that they would be heard and that the committee would come up with a solution to re-empower communities to enable them to stand up to the multinational corporations that were threatening the quality of life of those communities, the health of those communities, the environment of those communities, the land value of those communities, the economics of those communities and the capacity to produce food for many of those communities.
We heard from the Government Whip exactly the same sort of nonsense that comes out of the industry—attacks on the opponents without dealing with the issues. He cannot deal with the issues of coal seam gas because he cannot simply wipe away the experience of the United States or the orange water that is flowing around Queensland right now. He cannot dismiss the fugitive gas emission. The Government Whip tells mistruths about me. He defames good and decent people of European extraction who stand up for the rights of Aboriginal people. He defames the Aboriginal community. He defames people who have a slightly different view. He makes that defamatory statement and says it is an answer. He says it is all about regulation. This is not the argument the community wants to hear.
The Government Whip is a member of the upper House and maybe that is the best place for him. He should talk to The Nationals and Liberal members in the lower House and listen to what they are hearing from their constituents. He should talk to Thomas George and understand the concerns. The committee report delivered some excellent recommendations. Extracting data from the coal seam gas companies about their knowledge of produced water is important. Access agreements are great. Full cost recovery remediation where coal seam gas drillers have to pay for remediation is excellent and a ban on open storage of produced water is a good step forward. Also I think a ban on fracking chemicals until the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme has done its job and classified those chemicals is essential.
However, an obvious and bad omission is a complex and rich understanding of risk management. The fundamental flaw in the report is that it says, "Okay, we don't know about the impacts on water, on health and on agricultural production. There is risk and uncertainty associated with those issues. So what we should do is go ahead and do a whole lot of this stuff and find out how bad it is and if it is really bad, then we'll stop." When tobacco was first identified as a potential carcinogen the Surgeon General of the United States said, "We really don't have enough data on tobacco yet so everybody should go out and buy cigarettes and smoke more and then we will see if it is causing cancer or not because we will have a bigger data series." If they had done that there would be a lot more dead people as a result of the tobacco industry. The report clearly says, "We don't know. We don't fully understand the interaction with aquifers; we don't fully understand the impact with agriculture."
[Interruption]
Well, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps does not fully understand anything. The report says, "We don't fully understand any of these issues. Therefore, we should do more drilling." If that set of recommendations went ahead communities around New South Wales would see their land, their homes, their communities, their local 13632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
economies and their local agriculture absolutely destroyed, devastated and full of orange water—as it is in Queensland. One other issue I wish to talk about briefly is land access compensation of $5,000. How does $5,000 compensate for the health, environmental, lifestyle and land value impacts?
Coal seam gas is not a clean fuel. This is the crucial deliberate and wilful misunderstanding of so many people. I know that Mr Phelps would not do this because he does not believe in greenhouse gas emission but the reality of coal seam gas is that it is not a clean fuel. There is no way that one can construct coal seam gas as a low carbon fuel or as environmentally friendly fuel. I invite members to look very carefully at the experience of Queensland and the United States and understand fully the risks associated with the coal seam gas industry in this State.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.16 p.m.]: I place on the record my thoughts about this inquiry. Without doubt this inquiry has been a difficult and challenging inquiry in which to participate. The whole issue of coal seam gas is proving to be one of the most divisive issues I have dealt with during my time in this Parliament. Much of this division has been driven by anecdotal and emotive statements from The Greens and their well-known long-term campaign against coal production and now coal seam gas.
This inquiry attracted some 1,000 submissions and took evidence from 130 witnesses. A number of recurring themes surfaced during the course of the inquiry: security of water supplies; security of land, particularly high-quality agricultural land; security of communities and maintaining the social fabric of those communities in regional New South Wales. I have said many times to various people and groups around New South Wales and throughout the inquiry that coal seam gas extraction should not proceed if there is any significant deleterious effect on our agricultural land, particularly that unique land in New South Wales which arguably is as good as any agricultural land in the world; our water resources, including estuarine, riverine and subterranean waters; our communities and the social fabric that holds those communities together.
The problem that exists in New South Wales is largely a product of successive Ministers in the previous New South Wales Labor Government. Petroleum exploration licences were issued without any thought given to the economic, environmental and social impacts of the communities in which they were granted. Members opposite did it. The determining factor in the granting of those exploration licences seemed to depend more on the financial return to the State Labor Government in the form of a licence application fee, which in many cases was negotiated with the Minister of the day prior to the formal application being submitted. In most cases they were also granted without any prior contact with the landowners on whose properties the petroleum exploration licences were granted. That is the problem and this Government has not approved one petroleum exploration licence. Indeed, we have made substantial improvements in the procedures that the previous Government worked on.
One of the major technical concerns expressed by many people related to the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is commonly known. Fracking has been extensively used in the United States of America as a technique to assist with the extraction of gas from very thick, very deep, very dense and very hard shale resources. Shale gas wells are typically between 3,000 metres and 5,000 metres deep, compared to coal seam gas wells which are typically at depths from 700 metres to 900 metres. Shale requires very high hydraulic pressures in order to fracture it, and it requires a large number of wells to be fractured to allow gas to be extracted from the shale in commercial quantities. Coal is soft, very often already partially fractured naturally in a cleat-like formation.
If fracturing is required, the fracturing pressures required are much lower than pressures required to fracture shale. Mr Rick Wilkinson, chief operating officer of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association [APPEA], told the inquiry that up to 10 times more horsepower is required to fracture shale than coal. The committee took evidence that it was most unlikely that pressures used for fracturing coal would be high enough to fracture the underlying and overlying shales and rock structures unless the hardness of the adjacent rock structures were similar to that of the coal seam. It is important that the differences between shale gas extraction techniques and coal seam gas extraction techniques are clearly understood by all stakeholders in this debate and all members of the wider community.
In addition to these technical differences between the shale and coal seam gas industries, technology is now being developed that utilises horizontal drilling of coal seams. This allows the screened area of each well to be increased from a few metres, in the case of a vertical well, to several thousand metres, in the case of a horizontal well. This reduces the need for fracking as the effect of the fracking is only evident for some tens of metres from the fracture zone while gas is accessible to the well screen for thousands of metres utilising 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13633
horizontal drilling. There can be up to 20-plus horizontal wells installed from each wellhead and this further reduces the footprint of any coal seam gas operation from a well on a 500-metre to 700-metre grid to wells being installed on a 4,000-metre to 5,000-metre grid at the production phase of the industry.
Many submissions and inquiry participants called on the committee to recommend a moratorium on all coal seam gas activities until we have sufficient scientific evidence to show that the industry can proceed without damage to our water, land and community resources. Realistically, there will always need to be some drilling and exploration to collect that scientific information. While this approach is concerning to many community members, it is unavoidable if we are to assess whether it is safe for the industry to proceed to a production phase. The impact of this industry on water resources was of concern to many participants. The range of concerns included aquifer connectivity and cross-contamination; the integrity of the wells during their productive life and following decommissioning; surface waters, particularly in relation to those catchments providing water for human consumption; the impact of extracting the produced water; and disposal of produced water and solid by-products.
The New South Wales Government has already introduced a draft NSW Aquifer Interference Policy to address and establish the rules for water licensing in coal seam gas activities. It will set the benchmark levels for impacts on water tables, pressures, quality and other potential impacts such land subsidence and aquifer compaction resulting from the extraction of coal seam gas water. This is without doubt a step in the right direction and a first in New South Wales. One must question why such a step was not taken by the previous Government before it allowed hundreds of gas exploration wells to be drilled and before it granted approval to the production phase of the Camden gas field some 10 years ago.
I refer to the potential impact on agricultural land and the quality of the various agricultural lands on which coal seam gas activities are proposed. There has been much comment about the term "prime agricultural land". I have been involved with land assessment and soil assessment all my professional working life. As a soil conservationist I have worked on a daily basis with the land capability classification system. It is an eight-class system that divided land into land suitable for cultivation, land suitable for grazing with occasional cultivation, land suitable for grazing only and land unsuitable for agriculture. As a private agronomist I also worked with the New South Wales Agriculture five-class system that divided land into five classes based on agricultural suitability classes. Classes 1 and 2 include land suitable for intensive and regular cultivation. Class 3 is land suitable for grazing and cultivation in rotation with pasture. Class 4 is land unsuitable for cultivation but suitable for grazing. Class 5 is land unsuitable for agriculture and, at best, light grazing.
The difference between the two systems is that the soil conservation eight-class system was designed to emphasise the need to protect the land from soil erosion and land degradation, while the five-class system by New South Wales Agriculture placed more emphasis on agricultural productivity factors. Despite the differences there are many similarities within the top-ranking classes and it is somewhere within these classes and the lower land classes that the boundary between prime agricultural land and non-prime land exists.
The technical difficulty lies with drawing a line on a map based on these classification systems—or any classification system for that matter—particularly when that line may ultimately be used for granting or not granting approval to a mining or coal seam gas operation. That difficulty cannot be overstated. It is for this reason the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy has been developed. This process aims to take account of various factors in relation to assessing the land in addition to the biophysical characteristics such as soil type, slope, rainfall and water access. The process aims to take account of social and economic factors such as proximity to markets and intensity of development of a particular industry—factors collectively identified as critical industry clusters. The House will find out more about it in the coming weeks.
Land identified under this policy as strategic agricultural land will be assessed through a gateway process that will be undertaken by an independent panel of experts whose decision will be final and binding on the Government. This process is a first for New South Wales and a first in the world. The previous Government had no such assessment process, and exploration and production lease applications were approved by the Minister without proper consideration of the effects on agriculture, the environment or the local communities.
The report contains a total of 35 recommendations. I suggest that all members of this House read and understand the report. Finally, I congratulate the secretariat staff: Beverly Duffy, Madeleine Foley, Rhia Victorino, Donna Hogan and Angeline Chung. The Hansard staff managed a highly technical discussion on geophysics, hydrogeology, engineering and chemistry. The secretariat staff was able to identify the key points at every session. I commend the report to the House. 13634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [6.26 p.m.]: Like the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, I was a committee virgin prior to this committee.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Take one for Australia.
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: I did. I thank the chair and the staff of the committee. The Hon. Robert Brown guided me through my first committee experience. I received a bit of advice before sitting on this committee as I had not been involved in a Legislative Council committee before. That advice was: Listen to the evidence and stick to the evidence. I would like to think my dissenting report and my contribution to the 35 recommendations bears that out. The evidence in my dissenting report was clear that coal seam gas had been operating for some four or five decades in South Australia.
The evidence we heard from drillers and the evidence that we heard and saw at AGL's operation in Camden was that the industry has been operating, and continues to operate, very safely. A couple of incidents above the ground were minor in nature. We can learn from those incidents, but they were not enough to put the brakes on an important industry. A number of Government members noted that this inquiry was called for because there was a policy vacuum prior to the change of government. There was inadequate regulation. The criticism that regulation was not keeping up with a gang-buster development had merit. The inquiry and the report were timely. It has assisted the Government in its preparation of law and regulation, including the aquifer interference policy, the gateway process and protection of things such as clusters. As the Hon. Richard Colless noted, we will hear more of that in the next week or two.
I will address an argument put by The Greens and by Labor members that not enough is known about coal seam gas exploration and extraction and therefore we should put the brakes on those activities. They invoke the precautionary principle. I studied the precautionary principle as part of my master's degree. Usually, the principle is abused by those who do not understand it, such as The Greens. The precautionary principle does not mean that if one does not have complete knowledge one does nothing. It calls for an assessment of the risks, taking into account whatever knowledge one has, and then making a judgement whether or not to proceed. The precautionary principle does not mean—as, I think, is misunderstood by the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and others—that if one has incomplete knowledge one stops. It means that one assesses one's knowledge and the risk, and then decides whether to proceed.
At this point I will mention the Namoi water study, which came out probably while the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham was in America. The study, over two years, involves 3D modelling that says that the coal seam gas industry and mining, even of the highest intensity, is unlikely to impact on groundwater. I will repeat that because I do not think the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has understood or read the results of that study. The Namoi water study says that even the most intense mining of coal seam gas is likely to have only a minimal impact on groundwater. I would like to touch on another point. The Aboriginal Land Corporation has put in a petroleum export licence over much of our part of the world. I have come out publicly and said we should support the Aboriginal Land Corporation in that exploration licence.
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. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
ANZAC CENTENARY
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.30 p.m.]: It is appropriate that a debate is underway in Australia about how best to mark the centenary of the Gallipoli landing. In the Australian Paul Kelly and Patrick Walters warn that the Federal Government's commitments thus far towards that end may become a lost opportunity for the nation. They point out:
The main omission is astonishing: the failure, so far, to address the meaning of the centenary on the Western Front battlefields. Unless addressed, this absence would be unforgivable.
14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13635
As Kelly and Walters and many others remind us, on the Western Front, in seven weeks around Pozieres on the Somme front in 1916, Australia lost nearly as many men—23,000—as in the entire eight months of the Gallipoli campaign. A year later the five Australian infantry divisions suffered 38,000 casualties in eight weeks fighting in the Paschendaele offensive in Flanders. They report that the Minister for Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, gives in-principle support to one suggestion as to how the centenary might be commemorated on the Western Front, taking a leaf out of Canada's book.
Recently I had the opportunity to see how the Canadians place 15 university students at a time at the two Canadian National Historic Sites on the Western Front—the Vimy Ridge and the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland memorial. The Canadian students live locally for three- to four-month sabbaticals and, after training, they supervise a visitor centre at Vimy Ridge and conduct battlefield tours. Between them, the two sites attracted 850,000 visitors last year. The students do an excellent job. Kelly and Walters have put to the Minister that Australia should examine duplication of the Canadian model with Villers-Brettoneux being the obvious site for such a project; others have suggested that site might be linked by a walkway to the Australian Corps memorial park at Le Hamel. Perhaps Australian students could be placed at those sites at times that overlap with Anzac Day services each year. It will be interesting to see whether the Australian Government progresses this suggestion. I hope it does.
Whilst visiting the Western Front I laid a wreath on behalf of the Parliament of New South Wales at the Menin Gate during one of the Last Post services conducted every evening at Ypres, as did the Australian Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Hon. Brendan Nelson. Since his appointment as Ambassador, Mr Nelson has attended the Menin Gate services scores of times. He has made a point of working to raise the profile of Anzac Day in Belgium, including being associated with the inauguration of an Anzac Day service at Toronto Avenue cemetery in the Messines sector. That cemetery, beautifully maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, as is the case with all of the nearly 1,000 cemeteries on the Western Front for which it is custodian, is the only one in Belgium in which Australian soldiers, and only Australian soldiers, are laid to rest.
At the service to commemorate the ninety-sixth anniversary of the battle of Fromelles, at the Pheasant Wood war cemetery, I laid another wreath on behalf of the Parliament. I thank Carole Laignol, who is a community leader involved in the upkeep of the wonderful Fromelles war museum—soon to be housed in new facilities—and Chris Munro and her colleagues of the Friends and Families of the First Australian Imperial Force—for assisting with arrangements for the laying of the wreaths. The service at Fromelles was particularly moving as it also marked the identification of a further nine Australian soldiers who died in that battle and whose remains lay in a long-unrecognised pit at the edge of Pheasants Wood until recently. At the conclusion of the service nine Fromelles children placed a single white flower on each of the nine Australian graves with the soldiers' names freshly inscribed.
Also, I visited each of the five obelisks commemorating the service and sacrifices of the five Infantry Divisions of the First Australian Imperial Force which fought on the Western Front. The battles in which each division fought are inscribed on the relevant obelisk. On the Fifth Division memorial the word "Fromelles" is inscribed, stamping that battle with its own identity. There is ongoing discussion about the need for such recognition on World War I memorials in Australia, including the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney. This matter should also be in focus in preparing for the Anzac centenary.
The commemoration of the ninety-sixth anniversary of the battle of Pozieres, at the memorial to the Australian Imperial Force First Division, was also attended—a service conducted each year by Pozieres villagers. During that service it was stated that the Australian-based Pozieres Association had raised funds from Australian sponsors to ensure that the annual commemoration continues. The association is to be commended for its care and diligence. But it struck me as unsatisfactory that commercial sponsorship may be required to ensure the continuation of an annual commemoration of the battle of Pozieres. Perhaps plans for this Anzac centenary should also embrace the nurturing and securing of such events for the next century. The planning for the Anzac centenary needs to be able to cater for the exponential increase in the number of Australians exploring their forebears' and their country's role in World War I, and that needs to be directed to Gallipoli and the Western Front. I respectfully submit that the centenary effort should concentrate on World War I.
MARIA JALOWIEC GRAVE RESTORATION
The Hon. WALT SECORD [6.35 p.m.]: Members of this Chamber are well aware of my personal interest in the Shoah. This is often a topic so immense in its scale and ugliness that we struggle to take it in. So 13636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
today I would like to make the Parliament aware of one Australian's story. And it is an inspiring one. That man is a Sydney barrister, Mr Irving Wallach. With his sister, Dr Sabina Wallach, he has taken great personal efforts to honour the memory of the woman who hid their late mother during World War II. In 1939 the Nazis and local collaborators rounded up the local Jewish community of Brzostek in Poland. Their mother, Rivka, managed to jump out of a moving truck and escape.
While most of the Brzotek Jewish community, including their grandfather Hersh Reiss, were murdered and dumped in a mass grave, Rivka hid in the woods for two winters with a friend, Genka. After Rivka broke a leg and could no longer hide in the woods, they returned to their home village where a neighbour hid them in a barn roof for two years. That woman's name was Maria Jaloweic. Years later Mr Wallach remembered—as a child in Sydney—how his mother would send a mysterious parcel to Poland each year. He has realised that the parcels were for Maria and her family. In September 2011 he was in Brzostek researching his late father's family, who was from the same region. While in Brzostek, Mr Wallach came across his mother's birth details and this eventually led him to go to her home village. In conversation with the oldest person in the village, he was told:
A few Jews hid, but only one, Rivka, survived.
That Rivka was his mother. Eventually, he learnt the name of his mother's protector and met her grandson, Tadeusz. Tadeusz recalled how his grandmother instructed him to take food into the barn and leave it on the floor, while never looking up. It goes without saying that Maria hid Rivka at great personal risk. At one point, German soldiers even stayed in the farmhouse, just metres away from the barn. Accordingly, Mr Wallach wanted permanently to remember this woman, her family, and their great courage in the face of brutality. He returned to Poland this year where, on 17 June, they re-dedicated the restored grave and tombstone of Maria, who died in 1979. The re-dedication was attended by the mayor of Brzostek, the local parish priest, the Australian Ambassador to Poland, and the Chief Rabbi of Poland as well as more than 120 locals. The ceremony was part of the Brzostek Jewish Heritage Project created by Professor Jonathan Webber and Connie Webber. Other Wallach family members travelled from Israel, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands to witness the event. Inscribed on the restored tombstone was a Talmudic proverb which read:
Whoever saves one life, it is as if they saved the whole world.
Mr Wallach said:
Maria's courage and her decision to save my mother's life came at the risk of possibly sacrificing her family's and her own life. Such people deserve to have their names and deeds shouted from the rooftops.
Mr Wallach hopes one day to have Maria included and officially recognised as a Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. At the ceremony, on her tombstone were gum leaves representing Australia and, in turn, the life that Maria made possible for them. The grave was also decorated in red and white—the colours of the Polish flag. It is a life worth celebrating.
I have known Mr Wallach since the late 1980s. To use a Yiddish word, he is a mensch, which in a loose translation into English means a person of integrity and honour. He has been active in many humanitarian causes, including reconciliation, the Aboriginal Legal Service and promoting the two-State solution for Israel and the Palestinians, as well as encouraging local dialogue between Sydney Jews and Palestinians. He lives in the eastern suburbs and continues to be active in progressive causes. His wife, Ms Ronni Kahn, is also an activist in her own right. Ms Kahn is the founder of OzHarvest—a national not-for-profit service that collects and delivers 320,000 meals a month in Sydney alone. This illustrates how the act of bravery by Maria Jalowiec was like "ripples in a pond" creating generous and positive lives over many generations. That is worth commemorating.
Finally, the Wallach family have requested that I publicly thank the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. Within minutes of my request to him, Mr Carr arranged for the Australian Ambassador, Ms Jean Dunn, to be present at the commemoration. The Wallach family deeply appreciates his assistance and wants it noted by this House. I thank the House for its consideration.
SUPER TRAWLER FV MARGIRIS
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [6.40 p.m.]: Tonight I add my voice to the growing tide of concern over the decision to allow the super fishing trawler FV Margiris into Australian waters. At 9,500 tonnes and 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13637
143 metres in length, with a net 300 metres long and a gape that is 80 metres by 35 metres, it is the second largest fishing trawler in the world and more than twice the size of any boat to have fished Australian waters. It has gained its notoriety ravaging the ocean off the coast of West Africa, according to Greenpeace speaking to the ABC radio program The Big Fish, and is expected in Devonport, Tasmania, soon to commence its slaughter and decimation of baitfish off the Australian coast. Why should we be concerned? Surely the ocean is a massive space and surely its allotted catch of 19,000 tonnes for a season will leave plenty behind. We should be very concerned and some are fast realising that. Protests were attended by locals, environmentalists and recreational and commercial fishers this weekend in Melbourne, Fremantle, Adelaide, Hobart and Launceston.
The permitted fishing area for the trawler stretches over two zones: from the Queensland border down to around Tasmania and as far west as Perth. The trawler can take only half its quota from each of the zones. But the commercial reality is that the trawler nets the baitfish where it finds them and as soon as it finds them, perhaps all in one bay or in one estuary, it uses its capacity to scoop 240 tonnes of marine life a day. The baitfish, redbait, blue mackerel and red mackerel that the trawler will take are feed fish for larger pelagic fish as well as dolphins, mammals and sea birds. The ecological balance will be destroyed in any area swept by the enormous nets, including the so-called bycatch of unwanted other species of fish and marine wildlife.
The vessel has a woeful record of overfishing in other parts of the world where it has previously operated, including off the west coast of Africa, its last destination. Thus, if Australia lets this vessel base itself here and denude our fisheries it is complicit in the worldwide destruction of all fisheries. If we allow and even facilitate FV Margiris fishing our waters how long before a Chinese trawler follows and an American and then perhaps an even bigger trawler in the future? There will be no stopping the escalation. The figures upon which all the assumptions for catch quotas are based are acknowledged to be rubbery at best and probably misleading. No-one knows in reality how big or small the bait fishery is off the Australian coast. Greenpeace has produced an excellent fact sheet on this situation and I quote from it:
Seafish Tasmania, the Australian company acting as partner to the "Margiris" has been in operation for some years, and formed a joint venture in Tasmania in 2000 to develop the pelagic fishery in southern Australia. They trawled for small pelagic and redbait on and off from 2000 until 2009 when schools disappeared. Seafish Tasmania say that they will need to catch 15,000 Tonnes of their newly expanded 18,000 Tonne quota to ensure the FV Margiris breaks even.
Greenpeace says that after catching the fish the catch will be frozen into 20-kilogram blocks of whole fish and sold to Nigeria for $1.00 a kilogram. It is to be expected that a large proportion of running costs and profits will go overseas. So why are we being told that we must take this potentially destructive risk and provide the FV Margiris with a licence to take fish and a base from which to operate? Greenpeace states:
The ship owner, Parlevliet & Van Der Plas, is a member of the European Pelagic Freezer—Trawler Association (PFA), which consists of 34 factory trawlers that are among the biggest and most powerful in the world. The PFA and its member trawlers, such as the FV Margiris, receive European taxpayer funds to subsidise their fishing of international waters.
The EU paid an estimated €142.7 million to secure fishing rights for PFA vessels in Mauritanian and Moroccan Waters between 2006-2012.
EU Taxpayers pay more than 90% of the access costs to allow these companies to fish.
These European Companies have recently been in the media due to their involvement in the South Pacific Mackerel Fishery which has failed with the fish stock collapsing to less than 10% of original estimates.
Federal Fisheries Minister, Joe Ludwig, stirred by protests from ordinary Australians, is now arranging belated meetings with Seafish Tasmania and recreational fishers to examine what additional controls may be possible to limit the damage caused by the FV Margiris. Suggestions are being made about independent observers supervising the catch. But that is needless; it is searching for a cure for an illness that we are bringing on ourselves. We do not need the FV Margiris off Australia. We must deny the ship a base in these waters and a licence to fish to protect our natural resources and those of our Pacific neighbours.
The global fishing fleet is 2.5 times greater than the oceans can sustain so why are we allowing these ships to enter new grounds to fish? Instead, we need to reduce the global fleet and reduce the subsidies that inflate their worth. Capacity reduction should begin with those segments of the fleet that contribute most to stock depletion and ecosystem damage and that contribute the least to the social, economic and cultural fabric of coastal communities. That is the FV Margiris and it should not be allowed entry into Australian waters. 13638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
ELITE SPORTS FUNDING
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.45 p.m.]: Tonight I join others in our community in thanking and congratulating our Olympic athletes on their efforts in London. Hopefully we will have an opportunity in this House to congratulate them in more detail on Thursday. For many people our athletes are an inspiration and it is a great achievement for anyone who makes an Olympic team. Tonight I want to address briefly the future of elite sports development in New South Wales and Australia. One might ask: What do I know? While my knowledge is somewhat dated, I worked for seven years in the sports policy section of the Australian Sports Commission and I put into words a lot of other people's ideas for the "maintain the momentum" policy in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympics.
At the 2012 Olympics we heard a fair bit of discussion about the performances of our team, particularly in some sports. It would be fair to say that we as Australians expect a lot. At tenth on the medal tally we certainly outperformed most other nations of our size. Nevertheless, we expect a lot and if we are to stay even in the top 10, let alone return to the top five, we will have to take a step up in athlete identification and preparation, which will be more expensive. In 2000 the elite sports development system in Australia was one of the most innovative in the world. That is why Great Britain took so many ideas from us and a huge amount of knowledge from expert staff. It is why when one looked on the sidelines of many sports during the Olympics one could see Australian coaches on other nations' teams. There is nothing wrong with that. People cannot be expected to horde knowledge. Now we need the knowledge transfer to come back the other way.
The rest of the world has moved on since 2000. While we have continued to develop, to me— admittedly now largely an outsider—we do not seem to have kept up. We are a bit like a car company which has had a very successful model but which needs to recognise that the next model is overdue to get back on top. We have the basics in place—potential elite athletes in many sports can progress from regional academies of sport to the New South Wales Institute of Sport and the Australian Institute of Sport. That is a base on which to build but we need to re-energise those networks. The New South Wales Institute of Sport has done great work but its funding levels are pretty much stagnant. Those opposite should be embarrassed that they have cut funding this year to the New South Wales Institute of Sport and that sports funding overall has been cut by the O'Farrell Government.
I think most people would be surprised by the very small amount that goes towards the development of athletes in New South Wales. In 2003-04 the New South Wales Institute of Sport received $5.7 million from the Government and in 2011 it received $10.2 million—that is probably a real increase of about $2 million. At the Federal level the national sport and recreation budget in 2011-12 was $519 million, boosted by Olympic preparation. Funding is forecast to go back to $369 million in 2012-13, although that is a real increase over the $269 million in 2006-07.
I noted last week the assessment in the Sydney Morning Herald of how much each medal cost and the implied question of whether it was worth it. I think it is; in fact, I think it is worth more. We fund elite sport for several reasons. Of course it is because of national pride and feeling positive. It is easy for critics to dismiss that as being unimportant but it is important. I wonder how anyone could possibly measure how the success of the many British athletes has impacted on their society, in particular, athletes who so obviously are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. My main reason for thinking that success at elite level sport is important is that it provides role models for participation in sport. If you talk to someone involved in any Olympic sport you will be told that the sport gets a boost in interest after the Games, particularly if they do well.
I have been involved in water polo for many years. The staging of the Olympic Games is the only time that water polo appears on free-to-air television and that sport gets a boost. What do we need to maintain our levels? John Coates was right in saying that we need to be doing more talent identification. Talent identification is different from just getting kids to play sport. Twenty-five years ago Australia used it successfully in rowing but it is not doing a lot now. Talent identification does not mean East German style sports factories but early identification gives an athlete and his or her parents an opportunity to make a choice about whether that athlete is up to the sacrifices that he or she needs to make, and it allows early access to good coaches, sport science and nutrition.
We need more sport in schools, although I tend to think that is only a small part of elite development. It is more about developing a lifetime habit of participation. Funding and remuneration are critical. To get good athletes we need good coaches, researchers, sports scientists and administrators. Most coaches in Australia do the job for love. That is what we would expect at many levels, but at elite levels we need more than that. While our national coaches are paid, the next level down, including those at State institute level, are not paid well enough. 14 August 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13639
Keeping our best athletes competing is another challenge. Very few sportspeople are able to make a living from sport and most Olympians will always be financially worse off for the time that they spent in sport. We need to ensure that we give our world champions and Olympic champions the income they need to continue to compete. We must also look at accessibility of sport, which is getting expensive. For example, junior registration in my sport costs $400 without pool entry fees. High fees are a disincentive to people on low incomes. We must do a lot of things. At the moment we do not spend enough on sport. We do not need to spend much more to get it right, but we should be working on it.
FULLERTON COVE COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [6.50 p.m.]: The recent sign-off of coal seam gas pilot production at Fullerton Cove near Newcastle has shone a spotlight on the desperation of the coal seam gas industry to win a social licence. It is trying all angles to change community perception and a growing reality that coal seam gas and agriculture cannot coexist. But at Fullerton Cove and for Dart Energy these efforts look like being a complete failure with their plans to link gas production to a greenhouse project only further alarming the community and demonstrating the underhanded tactics of gas companies.
On 7 December last year Dart Energy announced with grand fanfare a memorandum of understanding for a gas sales agreement with the company Maria's Farm Veggies Pty Limited. Maria's Farm Veggies plans to build a $65 million glasshouse to grow tomatoes, capsicums and cucumbers and would use the gas to provide electricity, heat the glasshouse and use the resulting carbon dioxide from the electricity production to stimulate plant growth. It is important to note that the agreement between Dart Energy and Maria's Farm Veggies was for excess electricity from the supply available from Dart Energy to go into the local electricity grid, with a long-term vision for a 32 megawatt gas-fired power station to support the project.
I refer to the language used by Dart Energy in the announcement including the lines, "coal seam gas development can co-exist with alternative productive land uses, including agricultural", and that it can, "facilitate sustainable food production and associated job creation in NSW". The likelihood of any of this being more than spin and misdirection is low, given the track record of the partner company involved. Cor Disselkoen is the chief executive of Maria's Farm Veggies and his company's vegetable plans have a bit of history. His Maria's Farm hydroponic project in the Shoalhaven was announced back in 2008. This project was supposed to be twice the size of the Fullerton project at $125 million, and was announced by planning Minister Tony Kelly as Australia's biggest greenhouse. It was a part 3A project and the proponent's hopes were for construction to begin in mid-2009. But the project application was revoked with almost no coverage and little reason offered. Locals in the Shoalhaven believe that the operator went broke.
While I am not sure what happened to Mr Disselkoen or his hydroponic plans for Bomaderry, I know that a judge from his home country of Holland approved his extradition to Poland in 2010 to face fraud charges dating back to 1997. In 2011 Dutch media reported, "Mr Disselkoen, who then had a deep freeze plant in Poland, was jailed for refusing to pay a tax he claimed didn't exist." He was released on bail after two months but an arrest warrant was issued in relation to the same matter in 2010. These events raise serious questions about Dart Energy's credibility in trying to link its development to an agricultural project with a company with such a dubious background.
My concern is that Dart Energy's plans have little to do with agriculture and more to do with trying to smooth the way for a coal seam gas field spread from Fullerton Cove to Nelson Bay. With such a shaky and possibly shonky partner in Mr Disselkoen, the likelihood of this supply arrangement ever coming to fruition is small. I am not aware of any project proposal to the local council or the Department of Planning for a greenhouse project. What seems to be going on is that the idea of a glasshouse is simply a ruse by Dart Energy—a public relations exercise to con this Government and the community into believing that its gas plans are about food production and local agricultural jobs to try to lessen the community backlash.
Let us put that furphy to bed right now. Dart Energy is not about to invest millions in exploration and pilot production to settle with a small field of a few wells to supply a greenhouse. This is a foot in the door approach with Dart Energy intending to punch dozens, if not hundreds, of wells through the Tomago Sands Aquifer to supply domestic gas networks or for a new gas-fired power station. We know the agreement is for excess electricity to go into the grid anyway, so with Government support for that the sudden failure of the greenhouse plans, which is possibly even the plan, would see Dart Energy simply demand to continue to pursue its power station plans without a greenhouse and to expand further to increase the viability of the project. 13640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 August 2012
The New South Wales Government is on notice. The community in Fullerton Cove is not fooled and it is saying no to coal seam gas. It recognises that Dart Energy's plans risk an aquifer that provides 20 per cent of the Hunter's water supply. It knows the risks to the nearby Ramsar-listed Hunter wetlands and it knows that a coal seam gas field in that community will be an end to a peaceful rural life on the fringes of Newcastle.
ABERDEEN HIGHLAND GAMES
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [6.54 p.m.]: On 7 July I was excited to don the Blair tartan and head to the Upper Hunter for the thirteenth annual highland games in Aberdeen. On a glorious winter morning I joined more than 3,500 people—more than double the population of Aberdeen—to represent Minister Souris at one of the pre-eminent celebrations of Scottish heritage in New South Wales. The games were opened by the Governor, Marie Bashir. The master of ceremonies was local councillor Michael Johnson, who is also The Nationals candidate for the Hunter. The games were attended also by the Labor Federal member for the Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon.
Over the course of the day I enjoyed watching the Tartan Warriors compete in the stones, sheaf and caber toss, the tug of war, novelty events and the pipes and drums displays. I had the privilege of presenting the commemoration sword to the winning pipe band from Lithgow. It was also fantastic to see a record number of participants and bands, as well as record crowd numbers. On the Saturday night a Ceilidh was held—a traditional gathering for song, storytelling, music and lots of dancing. It was a real celebration of all things Scottish. There was the traditional blessing of the Haggis, which I even managed to convince my eight-year-old son to eat. I particularly enjoyed watching the Federation Guard perform its drills during the day and again at the Ceilidh. The Aberdeen Highland Games have gone from strength to strength since the inaugural games in 2000. Now incorporating a street parade as well as an increasingly filled week of commemoration in the area, the games truly deserve our commendation.
This year the highland games received funding from Destination NSW's regional flagship event program, which was developed to assist organisers to cultivate their skills in staging, growing and marketing events as a means to drive visitation to their regional communities. The president, Mr Barrie Lawn, attended a workshop in Newcastle that enabled him to gain skills in planning, logistics, marketing, finances, evaluation and gaining the support necessary to be a successful funding applicant. There is no doubt that the skills Mr Lawn gained at the workshop and the funding provided by the 2012 regional flagship event program enabled the games to be the huge success they were.
I thank the organisers of the festival for extending their hospitality, including to me during the day. These organisers include President Barrie Lawn, Vice-President Steve Jones, Public Officer Charles Cooke, Secretary Suzanne Andrews and Treasurer Lisa Bourke. I also thank committee members John Driscoll, Lorna Driscoll, Mary-Ellen Leedham, Sue Lawn, Vicki French, Coleen Pinkerton, Jim Birss, Sandy Jones, Hannah Jones and Liz Birch who volunteered a great deal of time and energy to ensure the games were a success. It is events such as these that make regional New South Wales a fantastic place to live and to visit, and the community spirit in Aberdeen on the day was phenomenal.
While in the district I had the chance to see one of the major thoroughbred and racing studs near Scone. The thoroughbred industry employs thousands of people in the Upper Hunter and adds more than $5 billion to the national economy annually. The Hunter Valley is the second largest thoroughbred breeding region in the world, second only to Kentucky in the United States. I encourage all members to take a trip to the Upper Hunter next July to experience the games and also to appreciate the contribution the area makes to New South Wales.
I thank the Hon. George Souris for asking me to represent him at this fantastic festival. I took my family along and thoroughly enjoyed the event. I recommend the highland games to anyone who is looking for a fantastic day out. The organisers must be truly commended for their contribution and hard work. The Governor was scheduled to attend the games for only a few hours, but she arrived for the opening ceremony just before 10 o'clock and she was still there at 4 o'clock chatting to the people and visiting the stallholders. Poor old Sir Nicholas was a little bit tired, but the Governor was full of energy and wanted to make sure she made the most of the day. I commend the Aberdeen Highland Games to everyone. A great day was had by all.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.59 p.m. until Wednesday 15 August 2012 at 11.00 a.m.
______