19412
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 10 November 2005 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS
Report: Study Tour of International Jurisdictions—Malta, Dublin and New York
The Hon. Amanda Fazio, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 2/53, entitled "Study Tour of International Jurisdictions Malta, Dublin and New York", dated November 2005.
Ordered to be printed.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.04 a.m.]: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report: Traditional Chinese Medicine
The Hon. Christine Robertson, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 10/53, entitled "Report into Traditional Chinese Medicine", dated November 2005.
Ordered to be printed.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [11.05 a.m.]: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Christine Robertson.
PETITIONS
Desalination and Sustainable Water Supply
Petition opposing construction of a desalination plant in Sydney, and requesting a sustainable water supply through harvesting and recycling of water, and water efficiency, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT
Extension of Reporting Date
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I inform the House that on 2 November 2005 the Standing Committee on State Development resolved to extend the reporting date to 1 May 2006 for the reference relating to skills shortages in rural and regional New South Wales.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 188 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to clemency for the death sentence for Mr Van Tuong Nguyen be called on forthwith. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19413
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 188 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
MR VAN TUONG NGUYEN CLEMENCY PLEA
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.19 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) notes Australia's ongoing and unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty,
(b) expresses deep concern regarding the decision of the President of Singapore, on the recommendation of the Singapore Cabinet, to reject clemency for the death sentence which has been imposed on Australian citizen Mr Van Tuong Nguyen,
(c) notes Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's full confession, his demonstrable remorse for his actions and his full co-operation with Singapore's authorities and the Australian Federal Police,
(d) respectfully notes the capacity under the Singapore Constitution to grant clemency in rare circumstances and that Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's case fits the criteria,
(e) notes that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has urged states which still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence, or for crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences, and
(f) respectfully urges the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision and show compassion and commute Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's death sentence to a custodial sentence.
I move this motion, which is the standard motion put forward by Amnesty International for the consideration of Parliaments around the country, as the convener of the New South Wales Parliamentary Amnesty International Group. Yesterday afternoon an identically worded motion moved by John Mills, the honourable member for Wallsend, and seconded by Brad Hazzard, the honourable member for Wakehurst, was carried in the Legislative Assembly. On 26 October the Tasmanian Parliament passed a motion calling for clemency, which was supported by all parties. On 27 October the Queensland Parliament passed a unanimous motion moved by Premier Peter Beattie, seconded by the convener of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. The leaders of both the National and Liberal parties spoke in support of the motion. The Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister, John Stanhope, has written to the Singapore President, the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the High Commissioner seeking clemency.
The Australian Capital Territory Opposition is circulating a petition among members of the Assembly, urging Singapore to grant clemency. On 31 October the Federal Parliament passed a similar motion, supported by members of all parties. On 7 November Mrs Judy Moylan moved a further motion in the Federal Parliament calling for clemency for Mr Nguyen Tuong Van. On 8 November Senator Ellison moved an identical motion in the Federal Senate, which was carried. I will not take up the time of the House on private members' day by going into a great deal of detail, but we should consider this issue very seriously. The imposition of the death penalty is imminent in this case. The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore allows the President to grant clemency on sentences when personal circumstances allow, particularly when the convicted person has assisted authorities. Mr Nguyen has provided assistance to authorities.
Although many countries retain the death penalty, mandatory death sentences are very rare. Mandatory death sentences, when the judge has no discretion to lessen the sentence, can lead to very disproportionate justice. Mr Nguyen's case is an example of where the punishment seems to greatly exceed the crime. When mandatory death sentencing is in place, it is even more important to exercise discretion in requests for clemency. It is agreed by all parties that Mr Nguyen had no intention to import drugs into Singapore: He was in transit in Singapore. Malaysia provides for a separate crime with a penalty of 10 years imprisonment for people who transit through the country with drugs, but who have intention to import them. In the absence of a separate crime in Singapore, the fact that there was no intention in this case to import drugs should weigh in favour of clemency. I urge all honourable members to take note of the call by the Catholic Church in Melbourne for Pope Benedict to support the request for clemency for Nguyen Tuong Van. I urge honourable members to show compassion and support this call for the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision, and to commute Mr Nguyen's death sentence to a custodial sentence. 19414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.22 a.m.]: As a member of Amnesty International and a secretary of the parliamentary group, I second the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. At some time in the next few weeks Mr Van Tuong Nguyen of Melbourne will become the first Australian citizen executed over drug charges since 1993. The last legal avenues for appeal open to Mr Nguyen were exhausted recently when the President of Singapore, on the recommendation of the Singaporean Cabinet, refused to grant clemency. In December 2002 Mr Nguyen was caught at Changi Airport in possession of nearly 400 grams of heroin. However, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, explained recently in the House of Representatives in Canberra, the Australian Government has "argued strongly that there are compelling compassionate circumstances in this case to justify clemency". Mr Downer outlined Mr Nguyen's circumstances to the House of Representatives at some length, and I will mention briefly some of the things to which he referred.
As Mr Downer said, the personal history of Mr Nguyen and his family is unfortunate and difficult. Born in a Thai refugee camp and abandoned by his father, Mr Nguyen strove to overcome an unpromising beginning. He completed secondary school and involved himself in the scouting movement and local community fundraising activity. He became embroiled in his current circumstances not out of a desire for personal financial gain, but out of desperation and a sense of family loyalty. Mr Nguyen was attempting to pay off his twin brother's $25,000 debt to a Sydney drug syndicate. Indeed, prior to his arrest Mr Nguyen had been working for three years to pay off his brother's debt. Mr Nguyen has no prior criminal convictions, and since his arrest he has shown considerable remorse.
After his arrest Mr Nguyen made a complete and voluntary confession. Since then he has co-operated fully with Singaporean authorities and the Australian Federal Police in their attempts to apprehend the individuals behind his activities. Those individuals are the people who should be the primary focus of the law in this case. Rather than imposing extreme punishment against Mr Nguyen, significant penalties should be reserved for those who organise and ultimately profit from the drug trade. Severe sentences should be imposed on the people who take unscrupulous advantage of the misfortunes of people such as Mr Nguyen. As Mr Downer has stated, the Australian Government has "made the point to the Singaporean Government that Mr Nguyen's execution would close off forever a potentially important source of testimony should any further investigation lead to prosecutions".
While respecting that the decision of the Singaporean courts and Government have been made according to the due processes of Singapore law, the Federal Government has done everything it can to plead the special circumstances of Mr Nguyen's case. Their efforts on his behalf over some considerable time merit acknowledgment. The Constitution of Singapore provides for clemency to be granted in certain circumstances. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights urges that the death penalty not be imposed for crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences. Given Mr Nguyen's situation, his previous record, and his conduct since his arrest, the decision to refuse him clemency is regrettable. Mr Nguyen is deserving of clemency. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Government of Singapore to commute his sentence from a capital sentence to a custodial one. The gravity of Mr Nguyen's crime must not be overlooked and I do not defend his actions in any way. However, I am profoundly uncomfortable with capital punishment. I strongly believe that Mr Nguyen does not deserve to die.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [11.26 a.m.]: I support an appeal by the House to the Government of Singapore to spare the life of convicted heroin smuggler Mr Van Tuong Nguyen. I believe that, on balance, his life should be spared. But I also believe that he knew clearly what he was doing when he committed the terrible crime for which he has been found guilty. I believe that he would have seen the warnings plastered all over the Singapore airport, making very clear that he faced the death penalty if he got caught smuggling drugs. I believe that he would have been aware of similar warnings issued by the Australian Government. I believe that he was streetwise enough to know that if he got caught smuggling drugs he would face the hangman's noose. I believe that when he planned his crime to smuggle heroin for profit he had no concern and no mercy for his intended victims, many of whom could well have turned out to be our own children. But while Van Tuong Nguyen showed no mercy, I believe in showing mercy.
I do not believe that to show mercy is a weakness. I believe that to show mercy is a strength. To be able to show and exercise mercy is one of the distinguishing hallmarks of a decent and humane society. I believe that the life of Van Tuong Nguyen should be spared. I believe that his life should be spared even though he, through his premeditated criminal actions, had no concern for sparing his intended victims, no thought of sparing them from the misery his actions would produce and no thought for sparing them from the probability that his actions would contribute to many of their deaths. I believe that he should not be put to death for his crime. But in exchange for escaping the hangman's noose he should be locked up, never to be released. Van Tuong Nguyen 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19415 should be locked away for the rest of his life so that the weak, the young, the vulnerable and the easily misled cannot fall prey to him in the future. Let us be very clear, his part as a drug smuggler means that he is an essential cog in a highly profitable organised illegal drug industry. People must be protected from criminals like him.
In supporting a call for clemency for this man I certainly have no intention of criticising or berating the Government of Singapore. Its drug laws are designed to protect its citizens and to stop Singapore being used as a route for distribution to other destinations, including Australia. The tough stand taken by Singapore helps to act as a major deterrent, and Australia is the beneficiary. Who can blame Singapore for taking the toughest of measures to stop the drug trade? I certainly do not.
I accept that a majority of Australians support the use of the death penalty in respect to a certain limited category of offences, and I can well understand their motivation. They are frustrated with what they see as a weak response when it comes to the sentencing of those involved in serious crime involving the taking of life. They have a perception that there is a softness, particularly when it comes to those who operate the illegal drug trade. I am, on balance, opposed to the death penalty. However, I can conceive of some very limited categories where justice and the protection of the community would lead me to the view that it is an appropriate response; for instance with terrorism involving large-scale loss of life.
The views of each of us on the question of the death penalty are influenced and fashioned by a variety of factors, including our ethical and religious beliefs. My own attitude to the death penalty is influenced by Christian ethical values and my own church's teaching. I am specifically influenced by my church's teaching contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the definitive compendium of Catholic doctrine regarding matters of faith and morals. In regard to the death penalty the catechism says:
Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm.
For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
The catechism, although not specifically dealing with punishment, also has this to say:
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Whilst members will come to a view on the death penalty influenced by different factors, I can say that my view is fashioned by the words I have just read. I oppose the death penalty except in cases of extreme gravity. Does the case of Van Tuong Nguyen fall into the category of extreme gravity? To my mind the scales lean slightly against such a view, although it is a crime of great gravity. I do not intend, however, to criticise those who believe it does fit into the category of extreme gravity and who therefore support the death penalty.
The State of Israel does not have the death penalty but in 1960 it made one exception, in the case of Adolph Eichmann. His crimes beyond all doubt would fit into a category of extreme gravity. Does anyone in the Chamber possibly doubt that justice, and the memory of the victims of Eichmann, demanded a return of the death penalty for at least that one exceptional circumstance? I do not condemn Singapore for its death penalty for drug offences. It has the right to formulate its own laws, and part of its laws provides for clemency to be granted. I support such an appeal for clemency coming from this Chamber. To make such an appeal is in no way interfering in the legal affairs of the State of Singapore.
However, I am disappointed that the motion contains a number of other issues. Had it stuck to the sole question of seeking clemency for Mr Nguyen I would have been happy. I will therefore ask that the paragraphs in the motion be dealt with seriatim. Paragraph (a) notes Australia's ongoing and unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty. I do not believe we need to get into a debate on that issue because one can seek clemency for Mr Nguyen irrespective of whether one believes in the death penalty.
Paragraph (b) expresses deep concern regarding the decision of the President of Singapore, but based on the Singaporean law the President of Singapore has not acted inappropriately or improperly. Paragraph (c) notes Mr Van Nguyen's full confession and his demonstrable remorse for its actions. How do we know whether there was demonstrable remorse? We were not present when the trial was conducted. I am concerned that paragraph (e) notes that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is opposed to the death penalty 19416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 except where there are extremely grave consequences. It may well be that many people consider these are extremely grave consequences.
Paragraph (f) respectfully urges the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision, to show compassion, and to commute Mr Nguyen death sentence to a custodial sentence, which I support. Therefore, I support paragraphs (d) and (f) of the motion but I reject the remaining paragraphs. It is regrettable that the motion was not in the terms moved by Mr Beazley in the Federal Parliament: that the life of Mr Nguyen be spared as an act of mercy in view of his co-operation with the authorities. That was a worthy motion. I do not know whether that motion was eventually carried, but I would have been quite content to support such a motion. I conclude by asking that the paragraphs of the motion be put seriatim.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.36 a.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Amanda Fazio on moving the motion. I stress that the Australian Democrats are against the death penalty and I emphasise that Amnesty International will hold a vigil this evening for Van Tuong Nguyen. Penalties for drug trafficking are a punitive approach to drug policy and I am part of the parliamentary group seeking decriminalisation and drug law reform to enable them to be dealt with medically rather than criminally. It is a question of finding the best way to discourage the harmful use of drugs. Prohibiting alcohol was found to be more socially harmful and it is once again legal. The same approach should be taken with drugs. That is beyond the scope of this motion, but it is extremely important and picks up the point made by the Hon. David Clarke that Van Tuong Nguyen should never be released.
I note the point made by the Hon. Don Harwin that Van Tuong Nguyen was trying to get resources to help his brother, rather than seeking a personal financial gain. Therefore, he may be able to be rehabilitated. Before we condemn people to death or life imprisonment, we should consider rehabilitation so they can contribute to society rather than pay for them to live in a cell for the rest of their lives. Rehabilitation and restorative justice ought to be investigated in every situation for the optimisation of our resources and to make our society a better place in which to live. We should consider a more humane approach to distressing situations, particularly where countries consider such harsh penalties to be the norm.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.39 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and congratulate her. I also have received many emails from many constituents who have expressed views that are similar to those expressed by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. My views on drug taking and drug trafficking are well known. However, I believe that the life of Van Tuong Nguyen should be spared for the reasons articulated by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Hon. Don Harwin. I am reminded by Mr Ian Cohen that indeed the issue is not how much Christianity is practised in theory or how many catechisms one reads, but, rather, the simple words in the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill."
Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.40 a.m.]: The Greens support the motion and we congratulate Ms Fazio on introducing it. We particularly support the motion because, unlike the Hon. David Clarke, we are impressed by the first paragraph, which states that the House:
(a) notes Australia’s ongoing and unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty,
I note that the remainder of the motion goes on to explain the various extenuating circumstances that apply to Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's position, but at the outset it is important to restate an absolute and unconditional opposition to the death penalty. The first aspect to consider is the inevitable nature of the death penalty: Once it is carried out, there is no turning back. One does not need much of a grasp of history to realise that many errors have occurred. People have been executed and subsequently proved innocent. Timothy Evans of London in the 1950s is one case, and of course there are many examples of prisoners on death row in the United States of America being subsequently exonerated as a result of improvements in DNA testing techniques.
The second reason I believe that one should unconditionally oppose the death penalty is because it is a question of chance, a lottery, in terms of the jurisdiction that one is either passing through or is residing in. As the Hon. Amanda Fazio pointed out, if Mr Nguyen had committed the crime in Malaysia, the penalty would have been 10 years imprisonment, but because he was found guilty in Singapore, the penalty is death. This indicates very clearly the fairly arbitrary nature of whether a person's life will be sacrificed.
To expand that argument a little further, let me say that another reason for opposition to the death penalty is the way in which legal systems in many countries display a clear bias against certain minority groups. For example, there is ample evidence to show that our indigenous community is overrepresented in our prisons 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19417 system. If there were capital punishment in our country, I have no doubt that indigenous Australians would be overrepresented among those executed, just as black Americans in the United States of America are massively overrepresented among those who are executed in that country.
The death penalty should be opposed also because there is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent. There is no evidence that countries with the death penalty have a lower incidence of crime than those that do not. I believe that the death penalty does not do what its proponents claim it does. I believe it is appropriate for members of this Parliament to oppose the death penalty everywhere, including in Singapore.
We are living in a time when human life is increasingly held to be cheap, as evidenced by the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the death of more than 2,000 American servicemen in that country, as well as the victims of various acts of terrorism, such as in London and in the Middle East. When we recall examples of regimes such as that in Iran and the operation of sharia law, the Greens think it is incredibly important to state unconditionally the value of human life and that it should not be extinguished in any person by an act of the state. The Greens support the motion.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.45 a.m.]: This is a very important issue. Among the important matters that should be acknowledged in this debate is that a sovereign country has the right to make its own laws as the people of that country see fit. Australians may not always agree with those laws, but those countries should retain the right to make their own laws. Australians may not like the laws of another country and may not wish to make exactly similar laws here, but there may be laws in this country that other jurisdictions do not agree with. However, Australians would defend to the end the right to make laws for themselves.
With respect to paragraph (a) of the motion, we should not become embroiled in the debate about whether we should, or should not, have the death penalty in this country. We do not have the death penalty in this country, and that is the situation. Paragraph (a) is superfluous because no death penalty applies in Australia, so we do not need to have a debate on whether we should have it. Australia does not have the death penalty, and that is the end of that. Paragraph (b) refers to the decision of the President of Singapore to reject Australia's plea for clemency. That also is a matter for the President of Singapore. Australians would not take kindly to other leaders throughout the world seeking to impose their will on our political leaders when matters such as capital punishment have been rightly decided by the people who live in a particular jurisdiction.
Paragraph (c) relates to Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's full confession. The unfortunate aspect of that is that Mr Van Tuong Nguyen broke the law. Although he made a full confession, he broke the law and he must suffer the consequences of his action, whichever jurisdiction he was in.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He confessed after they found the drugs on him.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is right. He did not confess before they found the drugs. He was going to try to get away with it, if he could. He was guilty of that offence. If Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile or I commit an offence in this country, we expect to be dealt with as the law prescribes. If I travel to Singapore, commit an offence and am caught, I expect to be dealt with according to the laws of Singapore, not the laws of some other land. The debate comes back to the point I made earlier: a sovereign country has the right to make its own laws and apply them as the people of that country see fit.
It is appropriate to support the sentiment expressed in paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) refers to crimes without lethal consequences. When a person imports, exports or deals in heroin, how can it be said that that action does not have, or has not had, lethal consequences? We do not know how much illegal material Mr Nguyen may or may not have transported or dealt with prior to being caught. That is a matter of concern because any person who deals in heroin or sells heroin to other people or imports it, exports or otherwise deals with it, is engaging in potentially lethal action because heroin is an extremely dangerous drug.
Many deaths have been caused as a result of heroin overdoses. It cannot be said that Mr Van Tuong Nguyen has committed a crime without lethal consequences, because I believe that the consequences of importing, exporting or dealing with heroin can have, and will have, lethal consequences. How far are we going to take this? Currently several Australian citizens are facing similar sentences in other parts of the world. For example, the Bali 9 are on trial and could receive the death penalty. Are we going to take similar action with the Bali 9?
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about Amrosi? 19418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: He is not an Australian citizen; that is the difference.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: But isn't he a human being?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes, he is a human being, but if we are going to try to protect all Australian citizens from their own stupid actions in committing crimes around the world, that could take up a lot of the time of this place and other jurisdictions.
Mr Ian Cohen: That would be time well spent, I would say.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It might be time well spent but by the same token it is not something we should spend a lot of time on because those people have committed very serious crimes in dealing in heroin, which can have, and have had in the past, lethal consequences. I question whether we should spend much time on that. I will support paragraphs (d) and (f) of the motion, but will not support the other paragraphs.
Mr IAN COHEN [11.51 a.m.]: I support my Greens colleague Ms Sylvia Hale and the motion moved. I am sure that the protests and the information received in emails prompted many members of Parliament to write to President S. R. Nathan of the Republic of Singapore with a plea for clemency for Van Tuong Nguyen, who is an Australian citizen. I certainly have done that. I wrote a respectful letter as an elected member of this Parliament asking for an urgent review and intervention in the proposed imposition of the death penalty on Van Tuong Nguyen. I wrote:
Whilst I and my colleagues respect the sovereignty and laws of Singapore, we also ask your indulgence in respecting our earnest belief that the death penalty should not be imposed upon Australian citizens.
Mr Van Tuong Nguyen has committed a crime that no Australian would condone, but we respectfully seek the exercise of your mercy upon Mr Nguyen such that he will not be executed.
I understand that Mr Nguyen has assisted Singaporean police and Australian federal police with the inquiries and is prepared to provide further information on the drug trade in Australia and Asia.
It is quite clear that he has offered significant information, and that should be taken into consideration. The Greens do not support the death penalty in Australia or overseas. We think it is quite barbaric, but that does not take away from the heinous nature of the many crimes for which people face the death penalty. However, in the United States of America, with a population of 300 million people, there are 60 executions per year, or 20 per 100 million people. In China, with a population of 1.3 billion people, there are 3,500 executions per year, or 270 per 100 million people. In Singapore, with a population of 4 million people, there are 30 executions per year, or 750 per 100 million people.
Singapore has a very high level of execution; it is a very draconian regime. People are aware of that regime, but in this case we are not necessarily dealing with someone who could be classed as a hardened criminal. That does not defend the actions of Mr Nguyen. He is facing execution following the rejection of his appeal for clemency by the President of Singapore on 21 October. Mr Nguyen is an Australian of Vietnamese origin. He was arrested in Singapore's Changi Airport in transit from Cambodia to Australia in December 2002 and found to be carrying heroin. That is indeed a very serious crime. However, he had no previous criminal record. He was born in a refugee camp in Thailand and moved to Australia with his mother and twin brother when he was six months old.
Mr Nguyen has told investigating officers that he agreed to carry the drugs in order to pay off debts owed by his twin brother. He has been forthcoming since his arrest, has shown remorse, and has co-operated fully with the authorities. I believe that they are good reasons why this young Australian should be spared the death penalty. I suggest that there are certain steps that can be taken. Mr Stephen Mayne of crikey.com.au has forwarded information from a Singaporean resident that several high-profile government-connected young people have managed to slip through the drugs net when caught in possession. Mr Mayne is concerned that there is a double standard in those circumstances, which is something we often find. He has said that with every legal and government avenue seemingly expired, the more obvious tactic is to boycott the Singapore Government's huge commercial interests in Australia.
Mr Mayne said that he had dumped Optus, that he would not buy a mobile phone service with Optus. He said it was claimed that Optus was separate from the Singapore Government, which is not true, because the Singapore Government owns 62.7 per cent of Optus. Singapore does a great deal of trade with Australia and has strong financial bonds with this country. If there is a complete refusal to acknowledge this motion as well as 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19419 other available information, we should consider instituting trade boycotts. We are dealing with a regime that has a high level of executions of Singaporeans and people of other nationalities. I appreciate the arguments that countries have different legal regimes, which I have experienced during my extensive travels. There is no doubt that Mr Nguyen committed a serious crime. However, as the Hon. Dr Peter Wong said, from a religious point of view, thou shalt not kill.
In the past many people have been executed wrongly, and that inhumane, extreme punishment is still carried out today. There are other ways to punish people, including incarceration for life. I believe there is a strong argument, which I appreciate the Hon. Amanda Fazio has put to the House, for clemency in the case of Mr Nguyen. He should not face the gallows. There has been a real disparity in the media's reaction to the Schapelle Corby case and its reaction to this case. I think it is quite clear that we should not sanction what is effectively institutional and government-based murder.
The Hon. PETER BREEN [11.58 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, which notes Australia's ongoing and unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty in the context of the conviction in Singapore of Australian citizen Van Tuong Nguyen. The Hon. Don Harwin related the circumstances of Mr Nguyen, as outlined by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, in the Federal Parliament. Given those circumstances, it is difficult to not have some compassion for Mr Nguyen. It has always been a principle of the criminal justice system that penalties for offences are applied in a way that balances the nature and consequences of the offence with the particular circumstances and background of the offender.
I note that in New South Wales, for example, the penalty for 400 grams of heroin, which is the amount Mr Nguyen was charged with possessing, is in what is called the commercial range. The penalty in New South Wales would be a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. I emphasise that the circumstances of Mr Nguyen are such that if he were sentenced in New South Wales for that quantity of heroin, the penalty would be nowhere near 20 years incarceration. In fact, I am reminded of a case on the North Coast that was prosecuted last year in which a person was convicted of being in possession of cannabis to the value of $5 million.
I know that that quantity of cannabis would do an enormous amount of damage in the community, but in that case the offender received a custodial sentence of 10 months gaol. I do not know what damage 400 grams of heroin would cause, but I suspect that the damage may well be less than $5 million worth of cannabis; yet in New South Wales the sentence in the circumstance I outlined earlier was just 10 months imprisonment.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: That does not make it right.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: I agree with the Hon. Charlie Lynn that it does not make it right, but it is important to bear in mind the comparable punishment that would apply to Mr Nguyen if he committed that offence in New South Wales. That is all I was seeking to do. The penalty of the death sentence for an offence that might receive a custodial sentence of perhaps one or two years in New South Wales is an extraordinary comparison and contradiction.
The Hon. Rick Colless: We are too far the other way.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: It may be that we are too far the other way, but we are a long way from the death penalty.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
NEWCASTLE RAIL LINE REVIEW
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Will the Minister outline for the benefit of the Newcastle community his position in relation to the announcement by the Premier of yet another review of the future of the Newcastle rail line, given that he has not actively supported the retention of the rail line, including claiming that the current rail line was "an eyesore" that divides the city from the foreshore? What is the Minister's position? 19420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My views of the Newcastle rail line are well known and they have not changed. The Premier, of course, is entitled to conduct as many reviews of transport solutions as he wants to conduct. I think the reason for this review is that the Lord Mayor has been canvassing light rail. I think it is appropriate that we also look at light rail.
YETTA DHINNAKKAL CORRECTIONAL CENTRE AWARD
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Can the Minister inform the House about the recent success of the Department of Corrective Services in the Premier's public sector awards?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am pleased to inform the House that the Department of Corrective Services' Yetta Dhinnakkal program won the gold award in the social justice category of the 2005 Premier's public sector awards. The Premier's public sector awards formally recognise and reward the achievement of excellence by the New South Wales public sector. The Yetta Dhinnakkal program for Aboriginal male inmates is operated at a correctional facility situated on a 10,550-hectare property at Brewarrina.
[Interruption]
I do not know why Opposition members do not like anything to do with country New South Wales. They hate country New South Wales and interject every time I speak about anything to do with rural New South Wales. One of the primary objectives of the program is to reduce recidivism. Department of Corrective Services statistics covering the period 15 May 2000 to 16 June 2005 indicate that Yetta Dhinnakkal has achieved a recidivism rate lower than the rates for New South Wales inmates. A maximum number of 70 offenders are able to participate in the program at the centre.
The cultural awareness aspects of the program are provided with direct input from Aboriginal elders and members of the local indigenous community. In fact, the department's community consultative committee and the Ngeumba Aboriginal community were jointly nominated for the category. As a result of the outcomes achieved at Yetta Dhinnakkal, the Department of Corrective Services has decided to replicate the program in the far north-east of New South Wales with a second chance program at Tabulam for young adult Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.
Successful participation in educational, vocational and life skills is a further indication of successful outcomes of the Yetta program. This is evident from the participation in the past 12 months of 185 offenders in courses such as horticulture, shearing, agriculture, chainsaw operation, computer studies, first aid, occupational health and safety induction and construction. Approximately 65 offenders have completed machinery licensing courses. All offenders participate in literacy and numeracy courses, anger management and alcohol and other drug courses, providing life skills for post-release.
The Yetta Dhinnakkal program has significant benefits for the community through local community projects and the operations of the mobile outreach project in communities up to 400 kilometres away from Brewarrina. Each of these facilitate the application of skills acquired at Yetta Dhinnakkal into work projects that assist local communities, including restoration of buildings such as the Milparinka police barracks, clearing of fire trails, and painting and refurbishment of Country Women's association halls. I congratulate the department and all those involved on the success of this program, which has been rewarded with a gold award. The department recognises and commends the achievements of its staff.
It is with great pleasure that I share with honourable members today the announcement of the recognition of outstanding staff for 2005. Assistant Superintendent Wayne Taylor, who is currently acting as a senior assistant superintendent, has been awarded both Custodial Officer of the Year award and Employee of the Year award. Officer Taylor was nominated after implementing a number of workplace practices at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre that greatly improved the management of offenders with mental health problems.
Ms Laurie Sobhi received the Administrative Officer of the Year award as a result of her efforts in revising administrative, financial and stores information. Ms Alys Woodward received the Offender Management Program Officer of the Year award as a result of her extraordinary service in the areas of inmate advocacy and staff support. Mr Brett Cousley received the Community Offender Services Officer of the Year award as a result of his work in the probation and parole area. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19421
FLETCHERS ABATTOIR, DUBBO, AND OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE TRANSACTION-BASED CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister explain why Fletchers abattoir in Dubbo learned about the new ovine Johne's disease transaction-based contribution scheme for which it is the collection agent for this Government only after reading it in the Land newspaper? Why did the Department of Primary Industries not contact Fletchers with this information in the first place? How many other businesses are in the same position? Does the Minister believe that this is good enough, and what will he do to address this problem in the future? Will the Minister apologise to Mr Fletcher for his continued incompetence?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Referring to the issue raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I make it clear that the policy the Government is adopting is based on two fundamental principles. First, there must be a national scheme and a national framework and, second, it has to be approved by the relevant State committee. Both those things have been done. The precise terms that were to be implemented were widely known throughout industry. Mr Fletcher may have a disagreement with exemptions that have been approved nationally by a State committee.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order—
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Everyone, including blind Freddy is aware of these issues.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister made a reference to blind Freddy but this question has nothing to do with exemptions. I could ask him a question about exemptions if that is what he would like me to do. This question relates to notifying an abattoir that employs hundreds of people in this State that it had a task to fulfil for the Government. The Minister and his department failed to do that.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was making general comments. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is totally incorrect. The company was sent a letter and there was a brief. The plain fact of the matter—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: When?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will get the details later.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Get it now.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will get them when I am ready. Because Mr Fletcher disagrees with exemptions, he has decided to pursue his own little cause and he has fired up the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to ask this question today. I have made the situation very clear on exemptions: I am not going to act without the position taken by the State committee and the national committee. Those opposite can run and bleat all they like: I will not change their rules.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That has nothing to do with the question.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They were informed. Everyone in this place knows precisely what the arrangements were. This was discussed nationally.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is why you're in trouble.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no trouble whatsoever. I have made it very clear throughout this process that I am a servant of the committees, whether nationally or at a State level.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You're a servant of the people.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am a servant of those producer committees and I have followed their policies to the letter. If Mr Roger Fletcher is upset about that maybe he should put his views to the national committee. 19422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The committees that the Minister for Primary Industries is talking about have to do with exemptions. They have nothing to do with the question, which is about whether the Minister let Mr Fletcher's company know that it had a task to perform under this State Government. The Minister should answer the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows full well that is not a point of order. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Mr Fletcher knows precisely what to do. He is one of the largest operators in this country.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where was your missive?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He has got a missive. The plain fact of the matter is that Mr Fletcher is running a bit of a campaign to support his little agenda in relation to this issue. He is using this issue to fire up a little bit of a campaign. But New South Wales Farmers and the other producer organisations support a national framework, and the State will operate within that framework. Mr Fletcher does not like that. That is his problem. [Time expired.]
METROPOLITAN STRATEGY
Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: He won't answer it.
Mr IAN COHEN: He might. Why is the submission by the Department of Primary Industries to the metropolitan strategy a confidential document? Why is it not displayed on either the department's web site or the metropolitan strategy web site? Given that submissions of this nature are usually public documents and are generally displayed on relevant web sites and given that the future of land in the Sydney Basin is an important public debate, what is the Minister trying to hide? My office tried to secure a copy of the submission and was told that it was confidential.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is a good question. Mr Ian Cohen noted that in the course of the past year I have made a large number of public statements supporting the retention and protection of agricultural land within the Sydney Basin. I did that recently—maybe two or three weeks back—on behalf of Mr Ian Cohen at a meeting of the Sydney Basin farmers group at which the food of the basin was showcased. I made my views clear at that meeting. As to the document, I will look into it. I was not aware that it is confidential. I believe it should be on the web site; I am quite happy with that.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister give the House an update on the Commonwealth's attempts to abolish the New South Wales industrial relations system?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am pleased to update the House about this matter. Members opposite do not want to hear this but I think it is important that all honourable members are informed about these matters. I have the unfortunate duty to report to the House that the WrongChoices Bill was passed in the House of Representatives at 11.05 a.m. today without amendment. This was done after the Federal Government arrogantly abused its numbers to guillotine debate and prevent further discussion on the bill.
The Hon. Rick Colless: You'd never do that!
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We never do that here.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Don Harwin to order for the first time.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This act of treachery occurred on the very day that marked the 100th anniversary of the first hearing of the nation's independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The so-called parliamentary debate on this matter shut down in record time and was marked by 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19423 increasingly absurd claims by the Prime Minister. Yesterday John Howard claimed that his extreme and divisive changes would somehow avoid the sorts of riots that are occurring in France at the moment because they would help the disadvantaged.
The Hon. John Ryan: Ha, ha!
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That was a claim by the Prime Minister. I am glad the Hon. John Ryan finds it amusing; I find it absurd. Nothing could be further from the truth. These radical workplace changes will increase the gap between the wealthy and the disadvantaged. That is the purpose at the heart of John Howard's changes. John Howard's industrial relations changes will lead precisely to the conditions and the troubles that we are witnessing in France. The legislation now before Federal Parliament will create a new underclass. That is its very purpose. The WrongChoices legislation removes the connection between the cost of living and full-time employment in our economy. It will, over time, enable employers—in fact, incentivate employers; even good employers—
The Hon. Robyn Parker: "Incentivate"? What a great word!
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is an oldie but a goodie. It will, over time, enable employers to pay full-time employees less than they need to live. It is a recipe for unrest. It is precisely why people will lose faith in society and in a community where a class of people is unable to share in the prosperity of that society. People with limited educational opportunities or people with English as a second language will simply not be able to negotiate a fair deal with their employers. Over time, they will feel exploited and grow increasingly frustrated.
The persistent claim by the Commonwealth Government—and Mr Howard, in particular—that these radical changes are necessary to keep the Australian economy strong are completely, utterly and absurdly baseless. Studies by Dun and Bradstreet, Sensis and a string of others have found that there is no evidence that stripping entitlements and protection will have any job-creation effect. In its last annual report, the Commonwealth Government's own Productivity Commission concluded that consumers and businesses will have less choice and poorer services and will lose economic advantage under a centralised system. When a similar system was introduced in New Zealand in the 1990s productivity levels fell well behind those of most developed countries and well below the levels achieved in New Zealand prior to the changes. The simple fact is that the existing State award based industrial relations system has underpinned unprecedented increases in productivity and employment growth. Mr Howard's changes will reverse the gains we have made.
Today New South Wales will be submitting to the Senate inquiry, on behalf of the State and Territory governments, a comprehensive, factually based submission opposing this bill. As indicated earlier this week, I will present it to the Senate inquiry on Monday to convey these facts in person. In contrast, Mr Howard has presented no evidence to support his assertions and gagged debate about legislation that will divide and diminish Australian society.
CROSS-CITY TUNNEL AND ROAD CLOSURES
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware that a number of streets surrounding the fire station on Victoria and Craigend streets in Darlinghurst have been narrowed due to the cross-city tunnel? What discussions took place with the fire brigade in Darlinghurst about these street changes? Is the Minister aware of an event that occurred approximately three weeks ago when a fire engine that was returning to the station could not access William Street from Bourke Street because of the closure of that street south of William Street? The engine was stranded at the corner of Clapton Place and Farrell Avenue for about an hour. Has the Minister examined the impact of these street changes for all emergency vehicles in eastern Sydney?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: So far NSW Fire Brigades has not raised any issues with me. Normally the Roads and Traffic Authority works with emergency services regarding any road changes. I would have thought a bigger problem would be with an engine leaving the station to attend a fire rather than returning to the station. I will look into the matter and provide a response.
RURAL FIRE SERVICE ASSOCIATION FUNDRAISING
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Rural Fire Service Association [RFSA] telephone canvassing for funds? Are people contributing donations that they 19424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 erroneously believe are contributed to protect their local community through their local bushfire brigade, when the money is actually spent on administration expenses of the RFSA, including its office at Penrith, motor vehicles, and a subsidised shop? What action will the Minister take to ensure that the public is not misinformed?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Rural Fire Service Association, which is chaired by a volunteer member of the Rural Fire Service in Coonabarabran, needs to raise funds for its operation.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It didn't fight any fires.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Will members opposite listen? Aren't they annoying—they don't want to listen to anything from the country. New South Wales has 69,000 volunteers and, for the benefit of Deputy Leader of the Opposition, 7,000 voters in New South Wales are members of that organisation. During a two- year period the association gave $800,000 in grants to Rural Fire Service brigades throughout New South Wales from funds it raised. During the past couple of years the honourable member has asked about the association canvassing for funds. The association clearly identifies itself, and as I said, $800,000 has been given to a number of Rural Fire Service brigades for their facilities, buildings and equipment.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister inform the House of the impact of the Federal Government's industrial relations legislation on the New South Wales health system?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Howard Government's proposed changes to industrial relations will have major impacts on the health system in New South Wales, the most obvious of which will be in the private sector where nurses, allied health and support staff, private hospitals and aged care staff face the prospect of losing entitlements such as penalty rates, annual leave and safe workloads. The Opposition has not said a word in defence of those workers. In fact, it has promised to hand over every single New South Wales health worker, whether in the public or private sector, to the new Federal system. The Opposition's commitment to refer the State's industrial relations power to the Commonwealth is to throw nurses, ambulance officers and community health workers into John Howard's dog-eat-dog individual contracts system, reduced working conditions and have no independent unions.
The Opposition has no qualms about putting the pay and conditions of front-line health workers at risk, and no qualms about making it more difficult for them to balance work and family commitments, something that is already a challenge in the 24 hours a day, seven days a week environment in which the health system operates. The Opposition has no qualms about the potential risk to the safety of workers and the community with the loss of conditions such as reasonable workloads. The Opposition does not appear to have given any thought to the threats posed to the stability of the health services by the severe reduction of the capacity of the Industrial Relations Commission to resolve disputes.
Perhaps that is where the Opposition developed its madcap proposal to use 6,000 student nurses, without adequate resources or supervision, to take up places in the health system as student nurses. Will volunteers be used to undermine the wages and conditions of trained nurses? Will young people be forced to work for low pay with no conditions under Australian workplace agreements? I do not think its policy has a figure allocated to pay them anything. Will they be used to fill the gaps caused when experienced nurses leave the system rather than accept reduced conditions, or in the case of the industrial action that will inevitably be more common with the loss of the independent umpire? As if the potentially dire impacts on our work force are not bad enough, the industrial relations changes may also impact on funding available to New South Wales under the Australian Health Care Agreement.
Honourable members would be aware of the disgraceful history of this agreement—the $278 million funding cut for New South Wales hospitals, the threats of penalties of up to $1.1 billion if New South Wales did not sign the agreement and the fact that the Commonwealth awarded private health funds premium increases of almost 8 per cent whilst funding for public hospitals increased by just 4.4 per cent. But honourable members may not be aware that the indexation provided in the agreement is based on a flawed wage and cost formula imposed by Federal Treasury. So a decline in wages will impact on funding to our public hospitals. I am not sure that public health will be a high priority for members of the so-called Australian Fair Pay Commission, who will have responsibility for setting and adjusting—not increasing—minimum wages. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19425
And yesterday we had the extraordinary situation of the Australian Medical Association entering the industrial relations debate—highlighting the impact on our already-stretched primary care sector of the requirement for medical certificates after one day's sick leave. It is clear that the Howard Government's industrial relations changes do not just threaten the fairness and stability of the Australian work force, they do not just threaten work/family balance but they threaten the entire health system.
MONA VALE ROAD UPGRADE
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask my first question in my new role as the Leader of the Country Christian Democratic Party. My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware of the number of road safety upgrades currently being undertaken in the Pittwater area? Specifically will the Minister inform the House when the dual carriageway upgrade of Mona Vale Road between McCarrs Creek Road at Terrey Hills and Foley Street, Mona Vale, will be completed? Will the Minister also advise when the promised passing lane, driving west up the steep incline out of Mona Vale, will be provided with a truck arrestor to improve this most dangerous corner?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Quite clearly this question is for the Minister for Roads but I heard an interjection that it is not a country question. I look forward to the day that is not too far away when the Country Christian Democratic Party has more members than The Nationals.
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
ARMIDALE HOSPITAL SECURITY
The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. What measures has the Minister adopted to ensure the safety and security of patients and staff in New South Wales hospitals following the incident in the intensive care unit at Armidale Hospital on Tuesday night when a man allegedly ran amok and threatened nurses? How did that incident occur when the Government promised an audit of safety and security at hospitals across New South Wales in July 2001?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I made a statement about this incident yesterday in a media conference, which I will reiterate. At this point in time an investigation is being carried out in relation to the incident at the Armidale Hospital intensive care unit [ICU]. I am advised that no patients or staff were injured during that incident which occurred on Tuesday night and, indeed, that staff members should be commended for their prompt action in responding to that incident. Nursing staff immediately called for assistance in response to an incident. They entered the nurses' station to set off the emergency alarm. Staff response was immediate, with security and one staff member from each ward attending, as required by the emergency response.
Police were called and arrived within three minutes. They subdued the man with the use of capsicum spray, removed him from the ICU, and took him to the emergency department for medical assessment, where he was monitored and stabilised. The man was then admitted to hospital overnight under police guard and was taken into police custody at 7.30 on Wednesday 9 November. I am advised he will appear in Armidale Local Court today.
I understand three patients were in the ICU at the time, two of whom were transferred to other sections of the hospital and one of whom was transferred to Tamworth Hospital. Staff and patients in the area were offered counselling, and social workers attended the scene on Tuesday night. Some of the ICU equipment was damaged, and technicians have assessed it and provided repairs. The Armidale ICU was again ready to receive patients by 5.00 p.m. yesterday. I commend all staff who were responsible for ensuring such a quick recovery.
All patients and staff have the right to work in safety and to be cared for in a secure environment. To achieve this the Government has adopted a zero tolerance response to this kind of violence. The Government has committed $7.5 million in capital funding to support this zero response. The funding was made available to our hospitals in February 2002 to improve the security of buildings, and around $5 million per annum was provided to increase the number of security staff. At the same time rural health services received an additional $1.5 million over three years, commencing in 2001-02 for security improvements in our hospitals. In early 2004 a detailed hospital security manual entitled "Protecting People and Property: New South Wales Health Policy Guidelines for Security Risk Management in Health Facilities" was released. 19426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The manual assists health services to maintain effective security arrangements based on structured ongoing risk management and continuous improvement. The manual provides detailed advice on improving security in rural and remote health services, keeping our health workers safe, and supporting and using security staff safely. In March 2005 NSW Health released a security improvement manual that helps hospitals measure their security programs to identify areas that may require improvement. Hospitals can then take necessary action to ensure that their programs continue to be effective. Further action in the case of Armidale will be considered following the review to which I referred.
CROWN RESERVES TRUSTEES HANDBOOK
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Lands. What is the Government doing to assist community volunteers in their roles as trustees for public Crown reserves?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I commend the Hon. Henry Tsang for his continued interest in volunteers. The Government recognises the valuable role played by volunteers in the community, from their helping to run the best ever Olympics to their efforts in emergency services and assisting those less fortunate in the community. Our society would be poorer if not for the contribution of our volunteers. This is also the case in the management of our many Crown reserves, which range from the showground and country racecourses through to community halls and lighthouses. The Crown reserve system is the oldest and most diverse system of land management in New South Wales. It promotes the care, control and management of Crown reserves by the community in co-operation with the State Government and reserve uses.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I hope you've got some good news for Crookwell Golf Club there.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Approximately 850 of these reserves are managed by community trusts comprising volunteers from local communities. Volunteers also manage approximately 300 town commons and schools of art on Crown land. These volunteers donate their time free of charge, motivated by the desire to make a contribution to the community. As I said, the Government recognises and supports our volunteers. We need to provide them with the knowledge and skills to meet the ever-increasing demands associated with managing public facilities. I am pleased to inform the House that the Department of Lands has just produced an updated trust handbook for trust members, which will be distributed to them on CD-ROM within the next couple of weeks. It will be available also on the Department of Lands web site.
The handbook is an invaluable guide for trust board members, and it covers most aspects of land, environmental, staff and financial management, and the responsibilities of trustees. It contains general information and guidelines, as well as regulatory requirements, on how to manage reserves. Other information in the handbook represents good practice procedures and concepts that will help to ensure that an effective system of reserve management is retained. Recent amendments to Crown lands legislation introduced a number of important changes to the way in which reserves are managed, and the handbook addresses the impact of these reforms. The handbook was prepared in consultation with reserve trust board members across the State to ensure that it is as relevant as possible. It is a living document, and it will be updated regularly in response to comment by trust board members.
I thank the community members involved in helping the department to revise and update the handbook. It is a resource of which we can all be proud. There are many community volunteers who give their time willingly. I am sure that everyone who uses our wonderful Crown reserves fully appreciates that dedication. I am certain that trust members will find the handbook invaluable in carrying out their responsibilities on behalf of the broader community. I acknowledge an interjection made earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the Crookwell Golf Club. My understanding is that the department is reviewing that rental. I believe the rental was about $1,000.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It's happening all over the State.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Will the honourable member let me respond to the interjection? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to know that my advice is that the club has been advised to pay its normal rental. Once the review is completed the club's new rent is expected to be similar to the current rent.
CROWN LAND RENTALS
The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. Recently the Premier announced that 120 of the approximately 1,000 non-profit volunteer groups would be exempt from the Crown 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19427 lands rental increases. I applaud the decision to exempt groups like the scouts and the Country Women's Association from this impost. I understand that the review for all other groups is ongoing. How can groups contribute to this review, and what are the guidelines to determine worthiness for exemption? Will the Minister provide an updated list of all groups that will, and that will not, receive this exemption? Given that there is an alleged high rate of obesity among New South Wales children and cardiac disease in adults, should not all sporting and outdoor activities, such as riding, sailing and golf, be encouraged actively by the Government? Do local councils have rent and lease agreements from the Crown for any purposes that include sporting grounds or other such purposes?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: While New South Wales taxpayers deserve to be compensated for the use of their lands—all Crown land is New South Wales taxpayers' land and New South Wales taxpayers need a return to pay for hospitals, teachers, police and so on—we need to balance that against the broader issues of capacity to pay and community contribution. The Government is reviewing the way in which rents were set for volunteer groups and other sporting and community organisations that occupy Crown land. At the Country Labor conference in Dubbo last weekend the Premier announced that non-profit volunteer groups, such as the Country Women's Association, scouts, girl guides and disabled-support organisations, would be exempt from any rent increases as a result of the broader reforms on Crown lands.
I have asked the Department of Lands to review the rents for sporting and other community groups occupying Crown land, including the Boatman's Cottage at South West Rocks, the Crookwell Golf Club to which I referred earlier, and a number of others. I expect a report on those matters from the department shortly. In the meantime, all rents have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the review. I can assure the House that any community or sporting group that finds itself in financial hardship will be treated sympathetically and compassionately. Groups or individuals who find themselves in such circumstances should contact the Department of Lands to discuss their situation. However, if there are some groups, such as large clubs with an enormous number of poker machines who do not need that assistance, that will be a different matter. The review will be undertaken by the department first. When I receive the report of the review it will be communicated to the clubs. If they have any concerns about the rents after that point, they should then contact the department or me.
MINISTER FOR FINANCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Is it true that the Minister is chairing the audit team in the Premier's Department led by Dr Michael Vertigan and Nigel Stokes, and that part of the Government's plan to rein in expenses in 2005-06 involves an expenditure review committee of which he is a member? Are these groups the same? Since he became Minister for Finance, how many times has he consulted the Premier's team in making a decision relating to the State's finances? What areas of Government expenditure has the Minister cut or reined in since he became Minister for Finance?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I answered the first part of that question in the estimates committee, and I do not intend to answer it again. I suggest that the member refer to the transcript of the estimates on that matter. The answer to the second part of his question will become obvious once the audit committee has released its final report.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD AND CLINICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister acquaint the House with recent developments in electronic health record and clinical information systems?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday I had the privilege, thanks to the Hon. Don Harwin, of meeting the King and Queen of Sweden.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They were pleased to meet you too.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: They were very hospitable. I met also the head of the Swedish e-Health delegation to Australia, Professor Jan Carlstedt-Duke, at a showcase of the State's electronic health technology achievements. It was an opportunity for a prolific exchange of ideas and the development of potentiality for co-operation between our two countries. As the head of the Swedish e-Health delegation so astutely remarked: 19428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Sweden and Australia are both leading nations with regards to the use of IT in healthcare. [Our] two countries share … a need for increased efficiency and increased co-ordination between the health care providers as well as an ageing population with an increasing demand for information about their health.
The New South Wales Government has invested $90 million for the development and implementation of the patient administration system over the period 2000-01 to 2005-06. Funds totalling $19.4 million have also been allocated for the development and implementation of the electronic health record over the period 2001-02 to 2005-06. NSW Health's investment in information management and technology provides clinicians with information systems that support better clinical care. Patient administration systems are software applications designed to manage registration and other processes related to the administrative management and support of patients, and to enable accurate reporting to State and national authorities.
Implementation of new systems across NSW Health will standardise the registration and tracking processes associated with all patients in all areas of services in New South Wales. The electronic health record is also a NSW Health initiative that will create a summary level, life-time electronic record of all care provided in public and private health care settings. A key element of the system is the provision of choice for the patient—a choice of whether to be an active participant in the system and a choice on the level of access granted to their records. The system is not compulsory. If a patient wishes, he or she can elect to opt out. In these cases no clinicians will be able to access information held in the electronic health record. Similarly, a patient may elect to restrict access to the electronic health record to a specific group of clinicians or health providers.
The major aim of the system is to improve the safety, quality and efficiency of health care. The electronic health record will be available to all health providers involved in a patient's care, unless the patient has restricted access to his or her record. From an operational perspective the electronic health record will offer a major leap forward. Imagine a young patient presenting to the Children's Hospital at Westmead with an asthma attack made worse by the child having a cold. Although an asthma management plan may have been prepared by the patient's general practitioner, it may have been left at home, stuck on the refrigerator. In such an event, the clinician at the Children's Hospital can access the electronic health record, and view the current asthma management plan, and based on that information the patient can receive the necessary treatment at the hospital. Upon release from the hospital and on returning to the general practitioner for a routine check-up, the general practitioner can view all presentations and medication changes during the hospital visit and update the management plan based on the information contained in the electronic health record.
I can advise that preserving system integrity and patient privacy are critically important aspects of the electronic health record project. Privacy and security will be assured in the system through the use of an identification and password process for clinicians and consumers accessing the system, supported by access controls that can be set by the consumer.
COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Premier, a question without notice. Is it a fact that seven of the suspected terrorists arrested on Monday had accumulated chemicals for the production of a fiery bomb known as "The Mother of Satan" because of its destructive burning qualities, which causes massive numbers of deaths and horrific burn injuries? Is it a fact that a licence is now required to purchase or handle bomb-making materials, such as ammonium nitrate? What regulation will the Government introduce to restrict the purchase and/or use of chemicals such as acetone and triacetone, especially as they are regularly used by house painters?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge the importance of the question. I decline to go into detail even though these matters have been speculated about already in the media, but I can report to the House on matters relating to ammonium nitrate—although, as the House would be aware, a number of substances are alleged to have been discovered. In relation to ammonium nitrate the Government and WorkCover have taken some decisive steps in recent times. Honourable members will be aware that the Explosives Act 2003 and the Explosives Regulation 2005 commenced on 1 September this year. Explosives were previously administered under the Dangerous Goods Act 1975, which was repealed on 1 September after a comprehensive review. The new explosives legislation establishes a complete supply-chain licensing regime—a cradle to the grave regime. The new licensing system is currently being phased in. By 1 January 2006 a person must not handle explosives or security-sensitive dangerous substances unless authorised to do so by a licence.
Licence applicants will need to meet a national probity assessment, which will be undertaken by NSW Police and Commonwealth security agencies. A person may only handle explosives or security-sensitive 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19429 dangerous substances unsupervised if the person is of good repute and can be trusted to handle explosives without risk to the community. To ensure the security of explosives and security-sensitive dangerous substances while they are stored and transported, all licence holders with this responsibility must provide a security plan before their licence is approved.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Farmers regularly use such substances.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This provision relates to fertilisers as well. In addition, due to national security concerns, ammonium nitrate is prescribed as a security-sensitive dangerous substance. The Hon. Rick Colless interjected to say that that is a substance commonly required by farmers. The availability of ammonium nitrate will be restricted. The Government and WorkCover have been sensitive to these matters. My colleague the Hon. Ian Macdonald is well known for his sensitivity. For example, fertiliser with an ammonium nitrate concentration of more than 45 per cent will no longer be available to the general public or sporting organisations such as golf, bowling or cricket clubs.
The fertiliser industry has developed suitable alternative products. The restriction on the availability of ammonium nitrate is required by the Australiawide counter-terrorism response of the Council of Australian Governments. All users of concentrated ammonium nitrate throughout Australia, be they farmers, miners, scientists or others, will be covered by the new regime. The licence fees are heavily subsidised by the New South Wales Government because we are sensitive to the fact that there are some encumbrances on materials previously used by farmers without this level of regulation. For example, users of ammonium nitrate, including farmers, pay $250 for a five-year licence, which is well under the real cost of regulation. Similar regimes for ammonium nitrate with similar fee structures are being introduced in all Australian States and Territories.
PARRAMATTA CORRECTIONAL CENTRE STAFF
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Can the Minister confirm that three correctional staff at Parramatta gaol, including the former deputy governor, are under investigation over the alleged bashing of a prisoner? If so, has one of the three staff since been promoted to the position of deputy governor at Long Bay?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his question.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You have no idea what you are talking about.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, I do, but the matter is under investigation. I am vaguely aware of the incident, but people are under investigation and I understand some of them have been suspended. The question obviously needs more detail, which I will obtain and report back to the member.
FOOD COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELLING
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House about the efforts of the Government to improve country-of-origin labelling laws?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the Hon. Tony Catanzariti for his very important question; he lives in Griffith, where this issue is extremely significant. The provision of accurate and easy-to-understand labelling on food products is important for both consumers and producers. For consumers, it means that they have the information they need to be able to choose to buy home-grown and locally manufactured products. I acknowledge the strong support of the Government's campaign from Mr Doug Cameron, who is the national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, and Mr Allan Jones and the New South Wales Farmers Association. For farmers, clear country-of-origin labelling gives them the chance to compete against increasing numbers of imports that are flooding our markets and helps to support our rural and regional economies.
Improving in the national standard to provide for consumer choice has been one of the priorities of the New South Wales Labor Government. Packaged food is already required to be identified as either Australian or imported. The standard also already requires unpackaged imported fish, including prawns, to be displayed with the label showing the country of origin, or a statement indicating that the product is imported. Since its establishment in 2004, the New South Wales Food Authority has conducted targeted surveys to assess compliance with these requirements, particularly for imported prawns. These activities have resulted in significant improvements in the accurate labelling of imported prawns. 19430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Earlier this year, Food Standards Australia New Zealand [FSANZ] released a draft proposal for country-of-origin labelling for unpackaged fruit, vegetables, seafood and nuts. While this was a step in the right direction, the State Government believes that the standard should be extended to cover unpackaged meat, such as pork and pork products. More than half of the pork products that are sold in Australia, such as ham and bacon, are from overseas. But unlike unpackaged seafood that is displayed for sale, retailers are not required to identify pork products as imported. In August, the Premier led the call for the "Fair Dinkum" meat labelling campaign from Cobar, where we met farming families to discuss numerous issues that confront the rural communities.
The detailed New South Wales Government's submission, which was prepared by the New South Wales Food Authority in consultation with the Department of Primary Industries, the Department of Health, the Department of State and Regional Development, and the Department of Commerce, was provided to FSANZ. Late last month our efforts were successful. Australian States and Territories have agreed to a national standard, which includes pork and pork products. When the standard is phased in, all unpackaged fruit, vegetables, seafood, nuts and pork and pork products will be labelled as to the country of origin. For the first time, the source country of these products will also have to be clearly identified.
The Government was also successful in arguing for the proposed exemption from country-of-origin labelling for products that are supplied to caterers and restaurants to be removed. I am pleased to inform the House that the ministerial council also took a number of other important steps forward on the issue of food labelling. The New South Wales Government argued that one of the major issues facing many Australian producers is the confusing and lax guidelines covering "Made in Australia" and "Product of Australia" claims. This issue applies particularly to our citrus industry, as the New South Wales Government and Country Labor have pointed out on numerous occasions. For example, under the current guidelines, fruit juices that are bottled in Australia from imported juice concentrate may be labelled as "Made in Australia". This is confusing for consumers and it is unfair to our farmers.
I was pleased with the decision by the council to refer to the Federal Government the issue of "Made in Australia" claims, asking the Treasurer to consider the Commonwealth legislation and guidelines that cover the issue under the Trade Practices Act. The New South Wales Government is hopeful that, with co-operation between State and the Commonwealth governments, a resolution will be reached to deliver a better system for consumers and for our producers. In addition, the ministerial council directed FSANZ to conduct a cost-benefit analysis into extending country-of-origin labelling to each of two or fewer principal fruit or vegetable whole food components that are packaged together, including fruit juice. Overall, it was satisfying to see consensus being reached between governments that will deliver a country-of-origin labelling system that is clearer, simpler and fairer.
We have also moved further down the path toward clearing up the confusion over "Made in Australia" and "Product of Australia" claims. That is what farmers and consumers have been asking for and the New South Wales Government has helped to deliver.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is he aware that section 220 of the Local Government Act provides that a local council is a body corporate and that this provision will potentially allow the Work Choices legislation to take away essential award rates for local government employees across New South Wales? Will the New South Wales Government commit to reviewing the status of councils before the imposition of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill to ensure that local government employees are not covered by the legislation? Further, will the State Government commit to reviewing the status of all State-owned corporations under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 before the imposition of the Work Choices Act to ensure that State-owned corporation employees are not covered by the Work Choices legislation?
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The question is clearly out of order. It seeks an opinion.
The PRESIDENT: Order! A question must not seek a legal opinion. As this question appears to seek a legal opinion, it is out of order.
OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE ABATTOIR SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it a fact that the ovine Johne's disease abattoir surveillance program is being discontinued in New South Wales? It is also a fact that surveillance is the most effective monitoring tool for assessing initial flock infection levels and the 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19431 effectiveness of control programs? Is it also a fact that prevalence areas are determined by abattoir surveillance and that the whole ovine Johne's disease program will be far less effective if the abattoir surveillance program is scrapped? Will the Minister guarantee sheep producers in New South Wales that he will continue the ovine Johne's disease abattoir surveillance program?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will try to answer the questions from both honourable members.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have a question from only one member before you at the moment.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not worry. The Opposition will get its answers. In relation to the transaction levy, I will read a list that I am happy to table which indicates that a letter was sent. Included in the list is Fletcher's International, at Locked Bag 10, Dubbo, New South Wales.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: My question was clearly about the abattoir surveillance program, not the transaction levy. I ask you to direct the Minister to address the question.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am just about to. I have just given the addressee of this letter and I will go on to deal with that.
The Hon. Rick Colless: I do not care about the letter.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The letter deals with the transaction levy.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: A question I asked some time ago was about the transaction levy. The Minister had sufficient time to answer that question at the time it was asked. The question asked by the Hon. Rick Colless relates to an entirely different subject. I ask you to bring the Minister to order and direct him to answer the question he has been asked by the Hon. Rick Colless.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was making general comments and he may continue.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In relation to issues concerning the ovine Johne's disease surveillance program, of course I totally support its retention. In the previous part of my answer I inadvertently referred to the fact that Mr Fletcher is campaigning on the national livestock identification system, using the surveillance program as his weapon, and that he knows full well all about it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me whether Mr Fletcher was informed, so I referred to the start of the list.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Clearly there is a question before the House and clearly the Minister is not answering it. I am more than willing to ask my question again to get the answer I desire, but the question the Minister is answering at the moment is not the one that is before the House. Clearly the Minister is trying to give an answer to a different question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question asked.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is. I will deal with it at 1.00 p.m.
GREATER SOUTHERN AREA HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL REPRESENTATION
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of his comment that was quoted in Queanbeyan's Chronicle last week—that the 13-member Greater Southern Area Health Advisory Council was chosen because "of their understanding of the health challenges facing NSW communities" and that they would "bring a unique perspective on issues confronting their local area"—how does he intend that the needs of the Queanbeyan area will be addressed by the council, given that no representative of the community has been included on the council?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: It is not the function of an area health council to sit around articulating parochial interests of one community over another. The whole idea of an area council is to collegially determine what is in the best interests of a whole area, to govern accordingly, and to give advice. Wake up to yourself. 19432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL
The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. I understand that a licence scheme is proposed that will allow licensed hunters to access State forests to aid in feral animal control. Will the Minister provide details of any proposed scheme? In which forests will that be allowed? Which feral animals will be targeted? How will the licensing scheme work? How will safety be assured?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is a very detailed question. Currently negotiations are taking place between the Game Council and a number of State Government authorities for the control of feral animals on certain public lands. That arrangement was embedded within the Game Council legislation that was passed by the Parliament some time ago. The Government is very close to finalising a number of arrangements for a pilot scheme for controlling feral animals using shooters licensed with the Game Council. The Hon. Jon Jenkins is anticipating my release of details of that scheme, which I will do in the not too distant future, along with the release of a hunter's guidebook. When I make that announcement I will give the Hon. Jon Jenkins the exact details.
Liability has been central to discussions. Any campaign of this type has to be well ordered, and that was envisaged under the Act. The Government has resolved most of the problems and will make a public announcement in relation to the program. A number of major feral animals that threaten the environment in a number of forests will be targeted. It is hoped that the campaign will be rolled out early in the new year.
SENIORS CARD WEB SITE
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Ageing. Will the Minister outline the latest Seniors Card initiative?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for her question and her ongoing interest in ageing issues. The Government is encouraging seniors to share their experiences and ideas following the introduction of a new feature on the Seniors Card web site. In New South Wales 890,000 Seniors Cards have been issued, giving discounts and special offers to seniors and encouraging them to participate in the community in an active and rewarding way. The MySenior section on the New South Wales Seniors Card web site offers members an interactive experience. It presents positive, real-life stories about people making the most of retirement, and aims to provide inspiration to those looking for activities and interests to pursue.
Seniors can swap ideas and experiences, and submit articles, stories, tips and photographs on a wide rage of topics, including hobbies, sports, entertainment ideas, and community activities, such as volunteering. The best contributions published each month will be rewarded with prizes by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. Seniors can also submit a personal profile of themselves or other inspirational people. The introduction of the new web site section is timely, as research has found that people aged 55 and over make up more than 20 per cent of the total number using the Internet from home—and this age group is the fastest demographic moving online.
If seniors do not have Internet access at home, they can get online at their local library or Community Technology Centre [CTC]. CTCs are a joint New South Wales and Commonwealth initiative to ensure that small rural towns benefit from new technologies and telecommunications, such as the Internet. The Seniors Card scheme encourages older people to enjoy an active and healthy retirement. The card is not means-tested. It involves a free discount scheme providing members with access to business discounts and New South Wales Government concessions.
Visitors to the Seniors Card web site can also view the new travel web pages, which offer valuable discounts, travel ideas and special offers to Seniors Card members. The web site features information on tours, accommodation, cruises, travel insurance and more, for both domestic and international travel. Members who wish to visit or contribute to MySenior should go to the Seniors Card web site: seniorscard.nsw.gov.au. Members can also view a complete list of the thousands of discounts available to New South Wales Seniors Card members.
I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19433
FLETCHERS ABATTOIR, DUBBO, OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE TRANSACTION-BASED CONTRIBUTION SCHEME
OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE ABATTOIR SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Earlier today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the transaction-based contribution scheme for ovine Johne's disease [OJD] and the Hon. Rick Colless asked me a question about the OJD abattoir surveillance program. I was asked whether Mr Fletcher had been contacted; the allegation was that he was not. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition took that hard line, supported by a number of members of the Opposition. In my answer I said that letters were sent from a database, including to Fletchers International at Locked Bag 10, Dubbo, New South Wales. In addition, Paul Forbes from the department specifically spoke to Mr Fletcher's office. The correspondence commenced "Dear Processor" and was sent to all the addresses on the database, including Mr Fletcher's company.
The letter said that the New South Wales Government had approved the transaction-based contribution scheme following extensive consultation with the industry, and outlined that consultation. The scheme commenced on 1 September 2005 and included sales conducted through livestock agents, abattoirs and private sales. The first use of funds was outlined, and has been covered in the House. The scheme is run under sections 12B to 12E of the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act 1998. The New South Wales Assistance Authority has been appointed fund administrator for the process pursuant to section 8A of the Act. An additional fact sheet was sent out with the letter.
For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the letter was signed by Mr Garry West, the Chair of the Ovine Johne's Disease Industry Advisory Committee. But that is not all: a second letter was sent on 26 August 2005 by the then Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority, Dr Richard Sheldrake, to all principals of abattoirs across the State. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone very quiet. That letter dealt with a slight change that was made following a meeting with agents about the scheme, at which it was agreed that the commencement of the scheme would be postponed until 1 October. Mr Fletcher received a phone call from Mr Forbes of the department, and a letter from Mr Garry West—a former National Party Minister. Several letters were sent to Mr Kevin Cottrill, of the Australian Meat Industry Council, concerning the scheme.
On 23 March 2004 a letter was sent to Mr Fletcher from John Seaman of NSW Agriculture, and on 26 August 2005 a letter from Richard Sheldrake was sent to the principals of processors and stock agents. In late August Mr Fletcher was sent a letter by Garry West. As I understand it, Mr Fletcher would know what the Australian Meat Industry Council is doing, because it has a view on this matter. In addition, I have issued press releases and I have had many articles published in the Land, and so on. It was ridiculous to ask a question about the Government not informing Mr Fletcher; it was just absolute nonsense and shows that the member was ill- prepared. I have the evidence and am quite happy to table the letters.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Did you get an apology.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He will not apologise. He makes stupid statements every day of the week. In relation to abattoir surveillance, the New South Wales Government supports a properly co-ordinated abattoir surveillance program for OJD in this State under the National Approach to the Management of Ovine Johne's Disease Scheme, but it is for the industry to decide whether this continues after June 2006. Abattoir surveillance provides some of the information behind risk-based trading and underpins the national approach to OJD. Of course, I would like that to continue. All my decisions have been based upon industry decisions taken by organisations as diverse as Mr West's. I seek leave to table the three documents.
Leave granted.
Documents tabled.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should get his facts right before makes such outrageous, stupid, over-the-top statements about a matter that has been well and truly canvassed both publicly and privately.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DETENTION POWERS
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 12 October 2005 the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Attorney General a question without notice regarding the Department of Community Services. The Attorney General has provided the following answer: 19434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
I am advised that Magistrate Mulroney did not suggest that children are entering detention by the administrative practices of the Department of Community Services.
I am advised that in the particular case to which he referred, the child was detained in a juvenile facility after being charged by police and appearing before Magistrate Mulroney on a bail application. The Department of Juvenile Justice was acting in accordance with bail conditions imposed by the Magistrate.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DETENTION POWERS
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 13 October 2005 the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Attorney General a question regarding juvenile imprisonment. The Attorney General has provided the following answer:
I refer to the answer to the honourable member's previous question. I am also aware that the Department of Juvenile Justice works jointly with the Department of Community Services to improve the delivery of services to children and young people who are clients of both departments. A memorandum of understanding [MOU] was endorsed by both departments in December 2004. The MOU sets out the roles and responsibilities of each agency in relation to clients who are under the parental responsibility of the Minister for Community Services and who are clients of the Department of Juvenile Justice.
The MOU focuses on improving policy, service planning and delivery to joint clients, and promotes a collaborative approach to joint case planning and service delivery.
Further questions relating to the details of the MOU can be directed to the responsible Ministers.
WORKCOVER AUDIT MANAGEMENT UNIT
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 12 October 2005 the Hon. David Clarke asked me a question without notice regarding WorkCover's audit management unit. I have previously indicated that WorkCover reviews and investigates accreditation service providers in relation to explosive power tool and formwork certification. These accreditation service providers are registered training organisations registered under the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Act 1990.
WorkCover annually reviews the 18 registered training organisations approved to undertake explosive power tool and formwork assessments to ensure that assessors undertaking assessments are those nominated and employed by the registered training organisations to do so. Further audit responsibilities, including course content and training methods, fall to the Vocational Education and Training Board, which administers the registration of the registered training organisations. WorkCover investigates complaints regarding the assessment practices of approved registered training organisations. Two complaints have been investigated in 2005, with one investigation completed prior to and one investigation completed since the Hon. David Clarke's original question on 22 June.
ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 18 and 19 October 2005 the Hon. Peter Breen asked the Attorney General questions regarding anti-terrorism laws. The Attorney General has provided the following response:
The honourable member is referring to provisions of a bill that was introduced into Federal Parliament on 3 November 2005. Some of the proposed new anti-terrorism laws require a referral of power from the States to the Commonwealth.
The proposed offence mentioned by the honourable member comes under the category of "sedition", a Commonwealth matter that does not require a referral of power.
Questions without notice concluded.
FLETCHERS ABATTOIR, DUBBO, AND OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE TRANSACTION-BASED CONTRIBUTION SCHEME
Personal Explanation
The Hon DUNCAN GAY: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Leave not granted.
[The President left the chair at 1.14 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.] 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19435
STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.
FLETCHERS ABATTOIR, DUBBO, AND OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE TRANSACTION-BASED CONTRIBUTION SCHEME
Personal Explanation
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.32 p.m.], by leave: Earlier today the Minister for Primary Industries implied that I had misled the House. That is certainly not true, and documents I have received refute that allegation and make the Minister's comments appear rather silly. These are the same documents the Minister tabled in the House, with the exception of the covering letter dated 30 September which I received from Mr Gavin Borham, which states:
Roger Fletcher has asked for this information to be forwarded to you.
We received some of this information from Paul Forbes on the 12 September (email sent 5:20 pm 9/9/05), other information was obtained from the RAA web site at that time. The information from Paul Forbes—
The Minister mentioned Paul Forbes; he sent information to Fletcher—
was received after I made inquiries to NSW DPI (Agriculture) because I had read about the levy in "The Land".
At no time has our company received any other information.
The company received the information that the Minister said it received, but only after it requested that information.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 188 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the clemency for the death sentence for Mr Van Tuong Nguyen be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio agreed to:
That Private Member's Business item No. 188 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
MR VAN TUONG NGUYEN CLEMENCY PLEA
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. PETER BREEN [2.35 p.m.]: Picking up from where I left off before question time, the church has always played an important role in the history of capital punishment, and I was pleased to hear the Hon. David Clarke continue this long tradition. He is in good company with his ambivalence on the issue and he was right to point out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has two bob each way when it comes to judicial killing. I have always thought there was a certain inconsistency in being pro life on abortion, pro life on euthanasia, but anti life on capital punishment. Indeed, I have stated that position to the Hon. David Clarke privately. Pope Benedict XVI expressed his opposition to the death penalty when he said, "Violence solves no problems." I suspect that the Hon. David Clarke would have agreed with Thomas Aquinas, who in the thirteenth century justified the death penalty on the grounds that it alone could protect a society under threat. 19436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
In 1810 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Manners Sutton, and six other bishops voted in the House of Lords against a bill that would have abolished the death penalty for stealing five shillings from a shop. In a very different decision in 1969 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, and 18 of his fellow bishops voted in favour of the total abolition of the death penalty. One argument that featured in the lead-up to the 1810 debate in the British Parliament was that the absence of so-called "preventative justice" meant there should be tough punishments, including the death penalty, to compensate for the individual's rights and freedoms that were the privilege of the ruling class. In other words, the price the British ruling class had to pay for its extensive rights and freedoms was harsh penalties for those who breached the law. Colonel William Frankland said during the debate in the House of Commons:
Such sanctions are the price we pay for our liberties.
The same argument is heard today—as though the Government doles out rights and freedom with one hand and balances them with tough penalties on the other. While I was hardly surprised to hear the Hon. David Clarke use his religion to justify his position on the death penalty, I was surprised to hear him recommend that Mr Nguyen should never be released from prison—for an offence that would land him a comparatively short custodial sentence in New South Wales. While Mr Nguyen's actions cannot be condoned, permanent incarceration, like the death penalty, denies a prisoner all hope of rehabilitation and forgiveness. In a recent edition of the Australian Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Francis George was quoted as saying:
American culture encourages everything and forgives nothing.
When it comes to the United States of America penal system, unfortunately that seems to be true. Today more than 132,000 prisoners in the United States are serving life sentences and just a miniscule number of them will have any opportunity of parole. The New York Times reports that at least $3 billion is spent each year in the United States gaoling people for life. The Australian Catholic Reporter says that life sentences without any hope of parole are both inhumane and un-Christian. It says:
Locking people up and throwing away the key seems to be more and more the American way. The phenomenon owes itself both to opponents of the death penalty who have urged life sentences in lieu of death and to politicians and prosecutors wishing to appear tough on crime.
In a recent case in the United States, the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a juvenile prisoner on the basis that he had less hope of leaving prison as a lifer than he did as a death row inmate. The moral bankruptcy in such a stand is breathtaking and of course the decision has its own parallel in the legislation passed by this House last May to keep Bronson Blessington in gaol, in the word of the Attorney, "forever". Honourable members will recall that Blessington was a 14-year-old with the mental capacity of a nine- or 10- year-old at the time of his crimes. I said during debate at the time that the legislation would be challenged, and I can now inform the House that the Court of Criminal Appeal has set aside two days in March next year to hear the case.
This is important. It establishes and recognises this House's position on the death penalty and it follows in the form of similar motions passed in other Parliaments in Australia. The Hon. David Clarke has asked that the paragraphs of the motion be voted on seriatim—presumably he will agree with some but not others. I am not clear at this stage what provisions he will support or oppose. My view is that the motion is already in the form agreed to by Amnesty International, which established the precedent and is behind the move to bring pressure to bear on the Singapore Government in this very important case. It would be disappointing to detract from the impact of that statement that will be made across the country by reducing the effect of the position of this House by agreeing to or disagreeing with various provisions.
I urge the House to support the motion as it appears on the notice paper to get the message across that civilised people do not support judicial killing, that they do not support the idea that people are beyond any possibility of redemption, and that they believe in rehabilitation and reconciliation and, for people of a religious persuasion, in the important notion of forgiveness. The death penalty cuts off all those options, and on that basis I urge the House to support the motion.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.42 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio relates to Mr Van Tuong Nguyen, who is facing the death penalty under the law of Singapore, where the death penalty is given not only for murder but for certain drug offences. I commend the Hon. Amanda Fazio for moving the motion and for her sincere concern about the possibility of commuting the death sentence. We should focus on voting on a clemency motion and not, as earlier speakers did, particularly the Hon. Peter Breen, the death penalty. That has confused the debate. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19437
Amnesty International should take the blame if it has proposed this motion in an ideological way, because that may help to defeat the very purpose of the motion. The motion will be voted on by paragraphs, some of which will be defeated, whereas a simpler motion, as proposed by Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Federal Australian Labor Party, would have had the unanimous support of the House.
The motion compels all honourable members to make a contribution in relation to the death penalty. All but a few members of Parliament have been to Singapore as either a stopover or to a place to stay. I have stayed there a number of times. Anyone who carries drugs in or out of Singapore is warned, because throughout the city, particularly at the airport, huge signs about the death penalty outline the Government's determination to crush the drug trade. I am sure Mr Van Tuong Nguyen would know better than most people, because of his association with Asia, that Singapore, Vietnam and China are ruthless in exercising the death penalty, and that when those governments say they will order the death penalty, it is not tokenism; they mean it. Anyone who tries to smuggle drugs in or out of Singapore is a fool.
Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's claims he was carrying the heroin to raise funds to pay off his brother's drug debts. His brother, a drug dealer, apparently got into trouble with drug gangs and owes them some tens of thousands of dollars. All honourable members have to question that statement, because anyone who is caught gives reasons to mitigate their crime in order to be given some mercy by the court. Obviously the court rejected Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's claims, which may or may not be true; we cannot test his motive. After the Bali nine were arrested by the police, some of their excuses were proven to be absolutely false, but we do not blame them for trying to lessen their penalty in court. Lawyers encourage the accused to formulate reasons why the crime was committed.
Mr Van Tuong Nguyen said he was carrying two packages of heroin, one strapped to his chest and the other to his back. He wore a loose shirt to conceal the packages. Apparently the package on his chest restricted his breathing, so at the airport he went to the toilet, removed it and put it into his backpack. Mr Van Tuong Nguyen almost succeeded in smuggling the drugs but something, not the heroin, he was wearing set off the metal detector. We know that security is very strict at airports. For example, recently at Los Angeles airport, after removing all metal from my person, security staff pulled me out of line and took me to another area to search me with their equipment. I almost felt guilty when I had to open up my arms and they felt my person to ascertain what set off the detector. A person could be carrying a gun or some other dangerous object.
In Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's case a female security officer patted his body and then touched the package on his back and asked, "What's that?" He realised he had been caught and admitted it was heroin and said he had another package in his backpack. Previous speakers said he was working very hard in employment in Melbourne so he had no reason to smuggle drugs. Reports I have read say he had lost his job four months before he went to Singapore, that he was unemployed and very short of money. The possibility is that he may have been smuggling the drugs to get himself out of financial difficulty. Obviously his mother is deeply distressed and I share her sympathy. She is a mother who is suffering and grieving over the actions of her son and over the possibility that he will lose his life.
Some speakers have raised the valid point whether, even if we feel it is just, we should interfere in the legal processes of other countries, such as Singapore. A number of Australian citizens have been charged as suspected terrorists, and I wonder whether we would be happy if Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or other countries said that they should be treated leniently. Australians would not be happy if other countries started telling us what we should do in our courts. We should bear that in mind when we are considering telling the President of Singapore and his Government what they should do in this case. Some speakers, particularly the Hon. Dr Peter Wong, referred to the Ten Commandments. Sadly, some people, including Christian, think that the sixth Commandment—you shall not kill—prohibits capital punishment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The literal meaning is, "Thou shalt not murder". It has nothing to do with the role of the State.
Immediately after receiving the Ten Commandments Moses and the State of Israel imposed the death penalty for many crimes and carried it out. The use of the death penalty was not in conflict with God saying, "You shall not kill." I am not saying that we should endorse capital punishment in our country; I am simply saying that the Ten Commandments cannot be used as an argument against capital punishment. The emphasis is now on a debate about capital punishment. Previous speakers have suggested that we should vote in favour of certain parts of the motion, which was drafted with the assistance of Amnesty International. However that would undermine its effectiveness, which is a pity. In principle I support the desire of the House to seek clemency for Mr Van Tuong Nguyen, and that his sentence be changed to a custodial sentence. 19438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The Hon. JOHN RYAN [2.52 p.m.]: I do not wish to participate in the debate for long. Although I support all aspects of the motion, it would have been wise of the mover to limit the motion to one for which the overwhelming majority of the House would have voted in favour. The purpose of the motion is to express strong support for consideration of clemency, but some aspects of the motion serve it up in the face of the Singaporean Government in a way that is almost designed that they not grant clemency. For example, by noting our unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty we insult the Government even before we commence, which somewhat undermines our respectful request for the Singaporean Cabinet and the Government to consider granting clemency. I am not sure that a motion that has been debated at length and that will ultimately result in a division and less than an overwhelming majority makes a sufficiently strong statement that will achieve the objective, notwithstanding the interests of Amnesty International.
Although I support the objectives of Amnesty International, my participation in the debate is not to wave their flag, but to put on record my concern for the individual who currently is in peril of losing his life. I abhor the death penalty. I, like Prime Minister John Howard, absolutely and totally oppose the death penalty, but not because it is a moral issue. I believe it is open for Christians to support the death penalty. I take the view that the Scriptures are somewhat silent as to whether the death penalty is permissible because there is almost no reference to it at all in the New Testament. It certainly is not mandated as an option, but obviously it is permitted. When I escorted a group of Chinese leaders around Australia we visited the various landmarks in Canberra. When we got to the High Court one of them asked me whether Australia had the death penalty. I felt enormous pride as I said to the delegation, "We are actually able to keep a high level of law and order in this country without resorting to the death penalty." I do not say this to be pejorative to the Chinese. I believe that our capacity to improve law and order in this country would not be enhanced by imposing the death penalty.
One needs only to consider the United States of America, which uses the death penalty extensively. Their level of law and order is worse than it is in Australia. The imprisonment rate in America is worse than it is in Australia. The offending and murder rates in America are worse than they are in Australia. No sociological study can defend the use of the death penalty as an effective deterrent. This morning it was pointed out to me in informal conversation that Singapore has a low level of drug use because of the death penalty. However, I suspect that rather than a low level of drug use, Singapore has a low level of detection of drug use. Obviously, its citizens will not use drugs in the open if the death penalty is in place. I suspect that Singaporeans are no different from humankind across the world and, sadly, drug taking seems to be a habit that many ordinary human beings engage in. Whether they are open about it or not, it does not appear that any level of punishment overcomes the driving force behind drug use, which is a propensity for addiction. I am not sure that the death penalty is useful.
My overwhelming concern in participating in the debate is not to make statements about the death penalty but to request the Singaporean Government, as many other members of Parliaments across the country have done, to grant clemency for this individual. The first reason we should take an interest is that he is an Australian citizen. The second reason is that he is young. Nobody would argue that a 22-year-old, or younger, is entirely cognisant of the significant risks they are taking, notwithstanding that they are well publicised. Many people of that age would not have the fuller understanding that one has as one gets older of how stupid his actions were. We all know that young people act impulsively. But to act impulsively and lose one's life is something about which everyone would be concerned. Obviously we are concerned that the death penalty punishes not only the individual but also ultimately the family because they will lose forever the opportunity to interact with this person. There are good reasons why we would want to ask the Singaporean Government to exercise clemency.
Although I can agree with all of the statements contained in the motion, I would have seen wisdom in its being limited to those parts to which I am sure the overwhelming number of members of the House would agree to without having to engage in controversial debate, however worthwhile that might have been. I commend the motion to the House. From time to time it is reasonable to spend some short time considering these types of issues on private members' day. It is the first time in my memory of being a member of this House that we have debated the use of the death penalty. But to achieve the overwhelming objective, which is a statement to the Singaporean Government, we must be cognisant of the fact that it seems that the Singaporean Government is intent on carrying out this sentence.
Perhaps our statement today may not be successful in the instance of this particular individual. However, as water might drip on a stone, it might slowly but gradually work towards the eradication of that form of punishment in that country and elsewhere. The death penalty is not unique to Singapore. America, a democratic and Western country like our own, would see its way forward to dispense with the use of the death 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19439 penalty because I do not believe that at the end of the day it contributes to a lifestyle that is more law-abiding. The decision is irreversible and often results in large numbers of very disadvantaged people, and, sometimes, young people, meeting their end when the purpose of our correctional system is to rehabilitate.
Of course I regard the crime committed by Mr Nguyen as abominable. He clearly had no regard for the consequences that would flow from the crime of drug trafficking. He was not a minor drug trafficker. He was carrying in the order of seven kilograms on his body. No matter what he thought was his objective, whether it was to get a family friend out of trouble, he was nevertheless going to put dozens of other families in big trouble as a result of that transaction. No member of this House would suggest that the crime he committed was not serious and did not deserve a serious sentence of imprisonment.
The motion for clemency is the stronger when we all acknowledge and recognise that he committed a crime. The fact that he was an Australian who committed this crime overseas does not make us proud; indeed, we feel shame and we openly acknowledge that. However, as fellow countryman we seek to intervene because of his youth. One need only read the transcripts of some of the judgments to see that at the initial stages he was very co-operative with the authorities. He openly disclosed what he had done wrong and assisted authorities in uncovering the drugs he was carrying. Even the authorities admitted he expressed remorse immediately. Nevertheless, his actions were enormously serious and wrong. I do not blame the Singaporean Government for having strong penalties for people who traffic in drugs, but we would rather that it did not implement the death penalty on this individual. Therefore, I join the House in overwhelmingly requesting clemency for this individual.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.02 p.m.]: I, too, seek to amend the motion. I accept that it is a statement to the Singaporean Government. The motion seeks clemency, but it also casts some degree of judgment on the Singaporean legal system. It is those latter aspects that I take issue with because they interfere with the good nature and good intention of the clemency plea. It is not in the best interests, when making a plea for clemency, to make judgment on the Singaporean legal system and, therefore, those aspects should be removed from the motion. I believe that is important to send a resolution with the support of all members of the House to the Singaporean Government.
I am also not satisfied with the paragraph dealing with the confession. Other than what I have read in the media, I am not sure about what he has in fact said. He may well have shown remorse and indicated his involvement, but as to his full co-operation, we will never really know. We do not know whether he has indicated to the Singaporean authorities as well as the Federal police whom he purchased the drugs from or how he came to acquire them in the first place, so I cannot support that paragraph of the motion. Paragraph (e) notes that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has urged States that still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence. I concur with the position of the Hon. John Ryan that we should not allow this to become a debate on the death penalty, and he has rightly expressed his views on the death penalty. It refers then to "crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences".
The motion is well-intentioned but is poorly worded. Heroin in this country is one of the most pure in the Western world, about 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Therefore, seven kilograms of powder, distributed into half- gram deals, is a substantial number of deals on the streets of Sydney. Therefore, this amount of heroin is extremely grave; it could not be regarded as a party drug. One could not argue that heroin importation into this country is not lethal or grave. Heroin does have extremely grave and lethal consequences and we must apply the legal system in this country as we see fit. We must not lose sight of the effect that heroin has on users, their families and the victims of crimes committed by those who are addicted.
In conclusion, I support paragraph (d), which deals with clemency, and paragraph (f) urging the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision. This is not a judgment on the Singaporean legal system; it is a demonstration that we respect its views and system, but that we also seek clemency for Mr Nguyen.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [3.10 p.m.]: First I note what I consider to be the appropriate role of the Federal Government, represented by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, in seeking clemency for the person Van Tuong on the basis that the person is an Australian citizen. I am not firmly or positively of the view that it is the place of the New South Wales Legislative Council to be discussing this issue, but I acknowledge it is the right of the Hon. Amanda Fazio to bring the matter before members of this House. I regard what is being done by the Federal Government as appropriate on the basis that the person concerned is an Australian citizen and, as the death penalty does not apply in Australia, it is appropriate to seek that an Australian citizen will not be subjected to that penalty on the basis of another country's law. 19440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Having said that, I equally recognise the right of the Singapore Government—indeed the right of any sovereign country and its government—to execute, which is perhaps the operative word, its laws as it sees fit. In many respects, that matter is not our business. Primarily that matter is not the business of this House, but in the case of a foreign event, it is perhaps more appropriately the business of the Federal Government. I must point out—because others have not, and perhaps as a matter of sympathy—that Tuong Van is a bad man. This is not a case of a good guy who unfortunately has been caught overseas, but a case of a bad man.
I note that the Hon. John Ryan used the term "impulsive" in describing Tuong Van's activities. I point out that what happened was not done on impulse. This person was not in the company of a couple of friends when, on a whim, he stole a car on a Saturday night—not that I am suggesting that is a good thing because it is not. He did not impulsively lift something from a shop while a shopkeeper was not looking—and I am not suggesting that is a good thing either because it also is a bad thing. The offence we are discussing was not impulsive. It was a planned scenario over a number of days involving an overseas trip, passports and airline tickets and travelling throughout different countries. The act was not impulsive; rather, it was a plan to deal in drugs which had great negative implications for Australians should the heroin involved have made its way back to Australia.
Tuong Van's brother, whose name I understand is Khao—it is difficult to be sure of the pronunciation—is a bad man as well. Let us remember that the excuse that has been offered by this heroin trafficker, Tuong Van, is that he was trafficking to obtain money to be able to pay the legal bills of his brother, who is also a drug trafficker. Both brothers are Australian citizens by virtue of having arrived in this country after the fall of Vietnam. We welcomed them as refugees and they became Australian citizens. Honourable members might recall that Vietnam was where 50,000 Australian troops served and where over 500 of them died while thousands of others were wounded in an attempt to secure Vietnam's right to exist, but unfortunately they failed.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: They had a lot of help.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: They had a lot of help from people who should have been on their side. Since the Hon. Charlie Lynn has mentioned it, in reverence to and respect for all who served, I point out that while they may have lost the war, they did not lose a single battle.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Indeed.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: And at no time were Australian troops ever defeated by the Viet Cong or the north Vietnamese army. It does not besmirch Australian troops that ultimately the war was not won because that was not their fault. They did an extremely good job. The point I was making is that these two bad men, these bad blood brothers, came to this country as refugees where they were welcomed with open arms. What did they do to repay us? They became drug traffickers. Now a motion has been brought before this House to try to save one of them from being hanged. Other speakers during the debate mentioned that some of the paragraphs of the motion would not be opposed. I would not be very strongly against some of those and possibly may even support some others. However, in other cases, I would not be able to support parts of the motion.
I note particularly that paragraph (a) "notes Australia's ongoing and unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty". That is simply nonsense. It is just not true. That is subjective. How do we define "Australia"? Does the reference to Australia in the motion mean the Australian governments, or the Australian people? Although Australia does not have the death penalty, we should remember that we do not have the death penalty because politicians repealed the legislation. There was no outcry from the people and no referendum was held. Politicians removed the death penalty and since that time every poll has shown that up to 96 per cent of Australians believe the death penalty should be imposed for certain crimes. Law enforcement agencies have petitioned various State governments over past years to have the death penalty reinstated. The Singapore Government should not be misled into thinking that all Australians, as suggested by the motion, are against the death penalty. The opposite is true. Most Australians, as shown by any poll that has been conducted since the death penalty ceased to be a form of punishment in Australia, favour the imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes, such as the abduction, rape and torture of children, or the new crime that may be more prevalent in the near future, terrorism that leads to the mass deaths of Australian citizens.
No-one in this place should be under the false impression that the public at large is unconditionally opposed to the death penalty. On many occasions members of the public have demonstrated that they are not unconditionally opposed to the death penalty. We do not know whether the Australian public believes that the 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19441 death penalty is appropriate for serious drug trafficking, but noting "Australia's ongoing and unconditional opposition to the use of the death penalty" is absolute nonsense and is completely dishonest. Such a message should not be sent to the Singapore Government, even if it matters, and I am sure that the Singapore Government would not fall for it.
Another point I make in relation to these two bad men—these two bad blood brothers, these two refugees who were taken in by Australia as their own and who now have done such a thing to all Australians— relates to the excuse. Are we supposed to feel sorry for both brothers because one of them has legal bills and the other one will die as a consequence of trying to help his brother? What sort of excuse is that? If Van Tuong had said, "My mother is dying of cancer and I need to raise the money to save her life", some people might have been sympathetic. But does anyone seriously have any sympathy for the excuse that Van Tuong had to help to pay his drug trafficking brother's legal bills?
Paragraph (b) of the motion states that this House "expresses deep concern regarding the decision of the President of Singapore, on the recommendation of the Singapore Cabinet, to reject clemency for the death sentence which has been imposed on Australian citizen, Mr Van Tuong Nguyen", but the President of Singapore is simply following the law. I know this topic has been covered by other speakers in the debate, but generally I think it is offensive for members to be considering words such as "deep concern regarding the decision of the President of Singapore", because it refers to a decision of a president of another sovereign country who is following the laws of his country as the people of his country expect him to do. It is not appropriate for us to use such strong terminology.
Paragraph (c) notes "Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's full confession, his demonstrable remorse for his actions and his full co-operation with Singapore's authorities and the Australian Federal Police". Has somebody made this up? I am not aware of all that is stated in that paragraph. Where is all the evidence that shows all this co- operation? Do we really seriously believe that Van Tuong is remorseful about the damage he was going to cause to Australian citizens by returning with a little under 500 grams of heroin to this country? Or was he a little bit concerned about the fact that he is going to hang?
The remorse of most people who commit very serious crimes is based upon the consequences to them, not remorse or concern for the victims they had or may have caused. In the case of Mr Van Tuong, we are discussing remorse for the victims he may have caused. I do not believe for a second that he is remorseful for what he has done. He is remorseful about being caught. What co-operation have we seen? We could also ask the question: If he has all this information and he is able to give all of this co-operation to the Australian Federal Police and to other Singaporean authorities, where did he get that information? What other drug trafficking has he been involved in? Is this the first time he has been caught? How extensive is this fellow's network? What he was doing was not impulsive. It was not something that just happened.
There is some merit in paragraph (d), which states "respectfully notes the capacity under the Singapore Constitution to grant clemency in rare circumstances and that Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's case fits the criteria". I do not think there was anything particularly rare about what he did, but I do not think there is anything wrong with this House calling generally for clemency—except that it has already been done by everybody else, and is probably not necessary. I was under the impression that the Government had business that it needed to get through quickly before Christmas. Paragraph (d) has some merit, but why?
Paragraph (e) states that the House note that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has urged States which still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence, or for crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences. I note that the Leader of the Opposition said that this matter involved lethal doses of heroin, which have lethal consequences. On my understanding of mathematics, we are talking about an amount of heroin that would have become 26,000 doses. Let us not ignore the fact that that amount of heroin can potentially cause many overdoses. How many lives are potentially ruined by addiction? How many lives could be ruined by the accessibility of 26,000 doses? This is a pretty serious crime.
Paragraph (f) states that the House respectfully urge the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision and show compassion and commute Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's death sentence to a custodial sentence. Once again, there is a level of merit in that. We are asking the Singaporean Cabinet to consider that this person is one of our citizens, not one of theirs, and we are saying that we are sorry he has committed this crime. He probably is not sorry—apart from the fact that he was caught. I bet that his brother is sorry! I wonder what sort of means the brother is now seeking to pay his legal bills. Does he have another relative about to go overseas—maybe to engage in some drug trafficking? How will his poor brother pay the legal bills? Maybe we should feel more sympathy for him, because he is in a difficult position. 19442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Paragraph (f) has a level of reasonableness but, once again, I ask: Why should this House agree with it? The Australian Federal Government, a more appropriate authority, has already asked the Singapore Government to reconsider its decision. This is not something we should spend too much time on. Petitions have been lodged, letters have been sent, we have all signed documents, but for some that is not enough. Most members of the Federal Parliament have sent a request. A great deal of time has been spent on this matter. But I ask: Who has not spent too much time on this matter? The public; the people of Australia. They are not too fussed. Has there been any great outcry on talkback radio? No. Are people fussed about this? I have not received one letter or email about this guy. I have received emails about the industrial relations bills, which have nothing to do with us of course.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: That is because your view is clear.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I understand what the Hon. Henry Tsang is saying: people will not send letters to me because my view is clear. In response to the interjection I will explain to the Hon. Henry Tsang that sometimes I cannot believe what people send me because my view in relation to those matters is clear! In fact, people keep sending me their concerns about the terrorism laws. I support the terrorism laws. I do not support terrorists, or their sympathisers, or their supporters, or those who stand up for them in any way. Surely the Hon. Henry Tsang would agree that my views on terrorism would be known and that, consequently, it would be unlikely that I should be sent any correspondence on terrorism laws. When the Hon. Henry Tsang raised the point—
[Interruption]
I have acknowledged the interjection, I am now addressing it. When the Hon. Henry Tsang said that perhaps people do not send correspondence to me because they know my view on certain matters that is simply incorrect. A few days ago I received some correspondence about terrorists' rights. In reply I wrote that the sender obviously did not understand my views. I am not even concerned with terrorists' lives let alone their rights. They do not play by our rules, they do not fight by our rules, they are not entitled to our justice.
The Hon. Ian West: Who are "they".
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I will not go into that, because the debate will go off on another tangent. I assure the Hon. Henry Tsang that people send me material and lobby me on matters that surprise me, because I would think that people know my views on those matters. The fact that I have not received anything about Mr Nguyen in no way relates to people knowing my view on this issue; that is not the case. The reason I have not received anything about this person is that the public at large do not care, apart from a few civil libertarians and the politically correct.
I understand the need for politicians to stand up and voice their concerns about this person, especially members of the Federal Government who have done so appropriately. But not a vast number of Australians are storming the streets to protest the fact that a drug trafficker may be hanged in Singapore. There is just no such protest out there. More will be said about this issue, and in that regard I refer to the Bali nine. For the record, I believe the actions of the Australian Federal Police [AFP] were entirely appropriate in that case. I congratulate the AFP on having criminals who are about to commit crimes against Australia apprehended in other countries wherever possible. I support that concept. It certainly saves us a lot of money convicting them and accommodating them in gaol—albeit for too short a time—at $100,000 or more per prisoner per year. Let our drug traffickers be caught overseas, and let them suffer the justice system of the countries in which they are arrested. Drug traffickers do not go to other countries blindfolded or ignorant, so let them suffer the consequences. Wherever possible, more power to our Australian Federal Police for assisting overseas authorities to apprehend drug traffickers so we do not have to deal with them in Australia.
I am cognisant of the concept of whether we are for or against the death penalty. Some people feel strongly about this. Are people against the death penalty per se, or are they against the death penalty only for Australians? Is it possible that someone would suggest that we urge the Iraqi Government to save Saddam Hussein from the death penalty? Would we try to save Amrosi from the death penalty in Indonesia if he were an Australian citizen? In the past couple of days some alleged terrorists have been arrested. If they had gone to Bali and killed Australians and were sentenced to death in Bali, would we be asking for clemency for them?
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Some would.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: Yes, some would. Are we debating this motion because it involves the death penalty, or is it because the person involved is an Australian? I raise the point again that the Australian people have never been consulted on the death penalty in any reasonable sense by a Parliament. For some time I 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19443 have had before this House a private member's bill calling for a referendum on the matter. I am not stating that I believe necessarily in the death penalty. I have a fixed view about certain things, but my private member's bill is on the Notice Paper. I doubt that a referendum on anything like that will ever happen, because politicians would be afraid of the answer. I say again that politicians took away the death penalty; it was not something the Australian people asked for. And in recent times it is certainly not something that the Australian people have supported in any poll or by any other reasonable indicator.
This matter has been received unusual priority. The Daily Telegraph is to be congratulated on an article it carried on its front page last Tuesday about the death of SAS Warrant Officer David Nary, the first Australian soldier killed during activities in Iraq. Warrant Officer Nary was killed during a training drill in Kuwait as he prepared for deployment in Iraq. Most appropriately the article in the Daily Telegraph was a respectful memorial. Two days ago that newspaper, and other publications, carried that story as the nation mourned the loss of a great Australian, a brave Australian, who was serving his country. Yet just two days later this House is trying to save a drug trafficker from being hanged in Singapore.
I know others feel as I do, and I cannot come to terms with this. I am not too fussed about this fellow in Singapore. Yes, he is an Australian citizen, and in that regard the Government has done what it can. However, it concerns me that we have put so much time into this motion and not enough into the fate of Warrant Officer David Nary, who should be praised and upheld. To that end I am preparing a motion of which I will give notice next Tuesday. I hope that the House will give at least as much support to commemorating the memory of our first soldier killed in the Iraqi war as it has to trying to save a drug trafficker from being hanged in Singapore.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [3:30 p.m.]: I commend my colleague the Hon. David Oldfield for his contribution. I concur with my colleagues the Hon. David Clarke and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that this motion would have been passed if it had been crafted in simpler form, calling for the Singaporean Government to grant clemency to Van Tuong Nguyen. I would support such a call. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Amnesty International has tried to be a bit too cute and has turned this matter into a debate on the death penalty. I am against the death penalty. However, when I read of crimes such as the horrific and gruesome murder of Constable David Carty by a feral pack of cowards—the details of the mutilation of his body were so gruesome that they could not be made public—I sometimes wonder whether we should reintroduce the death penalty in special circumstances.
I remind honourable members that Constable David Carty died after being attacked in the car park of the Cambridge Tavern at Fairfield in the early hours of 18 April 1997. He was born in 1971 and was sworn in as probationary constable in August 1994. At the time of his death he was 25 years of age. On that occasion he had been out with other off-duty police after finishing his midnight shift. When he was leaving the tavern he was confronted by a group of men who fatally stabbed him in the chest and then kicked, punched and stomped on him as he lay dying on the ground. As I said earlier, other acts were committed on his body that are too gruesome to relate.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They knew he was a police officer.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Yes. Gilbert Adam was found guilty of the murder of Constable Carty and sentenced to a maximum of 28 years gaol. But his brother, co-accused Richard Adam, successfully appealed his sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm and walked free. Amier Yaco, James George and Eshmail Esha were acquitted of their alleged parts in the attack. Edward Esho was sentenced to a maximum of six years and eight months and Thamier Sako was given a maximum of five years gaol for inflicting grievous bodily harm. At the time the court was told that Esho had been "chipped" by Constable Carty earlier in the evening and he and two men later confronted the officer and incited violence.
David Carty is survived by his mother, Lorraine, his father, John, and siblings Paul and Janine, who have been awarded a life sentence to grieve over that senseless murder. When our system of justice fails us, as it has in that case, I am inclined seriously to reconsider my views on capital punishment for criminals who murder members of our police force in such a gruesome manner. If we as legislators cannot protect our own law enforcement officers, the law will not be enforced and people will demand harsher action at the next election. I endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless, who said that Singapore is a sovereign nation and as such we should respect the right of Singaporeans to make laws as they see fit to govern their country.
However, I cannot endorse the call earlier today by the Greens that we initiate boycotts against Singaporean businesses in Australia and trade boycotts against Singapore. Such an irresponsible action would 19444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 cause considerable damage to our relations with nations throughout South-East Asia. I have great admiration for the Singaporean nation. I lived in that country for a couple of years immediately after the British withdrawal from the Far East. That was at a time when the British occupied two-thirds of the island and many Singaporeans were living in kampongs. Their President, Lee Kwan Yew, was dynamic, patriotic and visionary. He knew that the country had no natural resources. It even had to pipe its water from neighbouring Johor Bahru.
The only thing Lee Kwan Yew could draw on was the human potential of his country. Enormous challenges confronted him, given the cosmopolitan nature of the population of Singapore, which comprised Malays, Chinese, Indians and Anglo-Saxons. At the time he set out to implement his vision there were considerable residual tensions as a consequence of confrontation with Indonesia. The war in Vietnam was being fought and communist insurgents were active in both Malaysia and Singapore. Lee Kwan Yew acted to move his people out of their traditional kampongs into high-rise buildings. He encouraged the development of local trade and industry and ensured that Singaporeans were trained to get jobs that would enable them to educate their children.
He established a universal superannuation fund to enable them to share in the future prosperity of their nation. He provided incentives to Singaporean students to study at the best educational institutions around the world. He implemented incentives for Singapore to be a safe and clean city. He set high standards for his young people and he did not want them corrupted with what he regarded as detrimental indulgences from prosperous Western cultures. He did not want hippies lying around the streets weaving baskets and smoking bongs. So everybody who came into Singapore in those days had to have a haircut at the airport. If they wanted to visit Singapore for any reason, they had to conform to the rules or stay in the terminal and catch the first available return flight home.
President Lee Kwan Yew introduced heavy fines for littering, spitting and other minor offences to change attitudes and to establish what was acceptable and what was not acceptable behaviour in the minds of his people. I lived in a Singaporean housing estate during that period with my wife and three young daughters. We were the only Australian family in the estate. I remember being told by my neighbour that there was no need for us to lock our doors when we left the house, and that was the case. We were made to feel very welcome, and safety was never a concern for us. The requirement on visitors to Singapore to have a haircut at the airport on their arrival became the subject of ridicule by some of the so-called enlightened nations in the area. Interestingly, however, those very same enlightened nations became extremely envious of the growth of Singapore's economy.
In my view, the political leaders of Singapore who guided their people from independence have built a proud, dynamic, multicultural nation without the assistance of any natural resources. It was built on human potential. That human potential is Singapore's most valuable asset and its people will do whatever they need to do to protect it. In my view, the greatest threat to the destruction of that asset is drug abuse. As a result, Singapore has a zero tolerance policy to drugs with a range of penalties specifically developed to act as a deterrent to drug use and drug trafficking. My colleague the Hon. David Clarke advised the House this morning—and it was reiterated by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile—that this policy, and warnings to those who may choose to deliberately flout and ignore it, are heavily advertised and signposted at airports and at other points of entry.
I assume that Mr Van Tuong Nguyen was well aware of that policy and those warnings, otherwise he would have simply packed into his briefcase the drugs he was trying to export rather than conceal them on his body in an attempt to sneak them past the Singapore police and customs authorities to get them back to Australia. Many people have said that we should base our plea on the fact that this was Van Tuong Nguyen's first offence. I would suggest that this was the first time he was caught. We know from the parliamentary inquiry into Cabramatta—and I know from my observations of the streets of Cabramatta—that the law for drug trafficking and drug abuse was not enforced on the streets of Cabramatta and other suburbs. Under this Labor Government, which subscribes to a misguided harm-minimisation policy with regards to drugs, dealers have been able to operate on the streets in broad daylight, in front of police, with immunity.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Many observers saw them doing that on a number of occasions.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless. That has been my experience as well. So the argument that this was Mr Van Tuong Nguyen's first offence is without substance. If we had been a little tougher on criminals who dealt in drugs, Van Tuong Nguyen might have got the message before he arrived in Singapore and he may not be in the position that he is now in. We have 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19445 contributed to this situation because of our weak and soft policies and our pandering to social do-gooders in this country. I wish to refer to the individual paragraphs of the motion. Paragraph (a) states:
notes Australia's ongoing and unconditional opposition to the death penalty.
I believe that the word "political" should be inserted between the words "unconditional" and "opposition". We should be careful not to verbal Australian people. We should debate the issue and then, if necessary, conduct a referendum in relation to it. The Hon. John Ryan pointed out that this is the first time the death penalty has been debated in this Parliament.
The Hon. John Ryan: I think it has been debated, but not for a while.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I accept the honourable member's comments that it has been debated. It certainly has not been debated since I have been a member of this place. If this issue were put to a referendum— and I am not advocating that it should be—I am sure the majority of Australians would support the introduction of the death penalty in certain circumstances, certainly in the circumstances to which I referred earlier relating to Constable Carty's senseless murder. I do not think it is our place to verbal Australian people. I have not received any letters in support of this motion. However, I sent an email to a couple of people I know from Western Sydney to get their views on the issue. They are totally opposed to this motion. If those opposite are to represent the people of Western Sydney—which is supposed to be Labor heartland—I suggest that they get off their maroon cushions and go out there and talk to them.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You said to me once, Charlie, they're not our people.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: And they are becoming less and less your people, there is no doubt about that. The people of Western Sydney are waking up to Labor. They realise that this Labor Government has taken them for granted and so they are changing their political allegiances. They will not do as their fathers and grandfathers did and follow blindly. At present Labor has no answer to that shift. The Labor Party's harm minimisation policy on drugs will drive away even more people in Western Sydney, particularly young couples who want to settle there with young families. They want their children to be protected from predators and the Government is not providing that protection. But I give a guarantee that after March 2007 we will protect them. That is why people will vote for us. Paragraph (b) of the motion states that the House:
… expresses deep concern regarding the decision of the President of Singapore, on the recommendation of the Singapore Cabinet, to reject clemency for the death sentence which has been imposed on Australian citizen, Mr Van Tuong Nguyen,
I have no difficulty with that part of the motion. Paragraph (c) states that the House:
... notes Mr Van Tuong Nguyen’s full confession, his demonstrable remorse for his actions and his full cooperation with Singapore’s authorities and the Australian Federal Police,
Other speakers in the debate have covered this point, but I stress that Mr Nguyen had almost half a kilogram of heroin strapped to his body. I suggest that Mr Nguyen had only two choices after being apprehended: either confess or deny that it was his body. He obviously could not do the latter. He was caught red-handed and he had to admit that the heroin was his.
I must admit that I am not convinced of the sincerity of Mr Nguyen's remorse. Has he apologised to the thousands of Australians whose families have been torn apart by this highly illegal, addictive and destructive substance? Did he go to confession and seek forgiveness for the lives of thousands of young Australian that have been lost as a direct result of callous, immoral and greedy drug dealers, who prey on the vulnerable and the rebellious? Did he apologise to the country that offered him a new home, with full access to health, welfare and educational opportunities? Did he apologise to the Australian taxpayers for the waste of billions of dollars that must be diverted to treat and rehabilitate the victims of drug-related crimes? I am not aware of any public statements by Mr Nguyen that would indicate a genuine sense of remorse. Paragraph (e) states that the House:
notes that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has urged states which still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence, or for crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences,
I do not accept that Mr Nguyen's crime did not have lethal or extremely grave circumstances. Thousands of young Australians have died as a direct result of heroin overdoses, and the addiction of hundreds of thousands more has led to extreme trauma on the part of families who have lost loved ones to unscrupulous predators and dealers in human misery and death. Van Tuong Nguyen was one such predator, who deliberately set out to destroy Australian families and lives just so he could pay off his brother's gambling debt. It is a fact that this 19446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 deliberate act would have had lethal and extremely grave consequences if he had got away with it. I congratulate Singapore Government authorities on ensuring that he did not. Paragraph (f) states that the House:
respectfully urges the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision and show compassion and commute Mr Van Tuong Nguyen’s death sentence to a custodial sentence.
I support this part of the motion but I caution that we acknowledge the term "respectfully" and use it wisely. We should condemn any move by the Greens or any other fringe dwellers to call for trade or business boycotts against the Singaporean people.
I support the Hon. David Clarke's suggestion that separate questions are put on each paragraph of the motion. I will not be part of a clever attempt by Amnesty International to verbal the Australian people regarding their views on the death penalty. However, I will support the plea for clemency to the Singapore Government.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.45 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio in its complete form. It is the same motion that was recommended by Amnesty International and passed intact by the lower House yesterday—without any problems, I understand. I am advised that other Parliaments around Australia are also passing similar motions. I in no way defend the actions of the person who is the subject of this motion. The issue, for me, is whether we should join wholeheartedly in the call for clemency that has been made by the Prime Minister, John Howard; the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer; and by politicians from all major parties across Australia.
If we are genuine in calling for clemency we must be wholehearted. It seems apparent from this debate that it is easier to be wholehearted if one opposes the death penalty. Certainly, I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I recall that Nick Greiner once said, "It is a barbaric concept, not consistent or befitting civil society." I do not rely on a religious position in opposing the death penalty. But if I were to draw support from the Bible I would turn to the New Testament, Matthew 22:34-40, which describe how the Pharisees tested Jesus and asked him what was the most important commandment. He answered that the most important commandment was "to love God with all your heart". He then said that the second most important commandment was to love one another: "love your neighbour as yourself". It seems to me that some statements and religious comment are not consistent with the words of Matthew 22, where the concepts of compassion and loving thy neighbour are seen as fundamental to our dealings with one another. Jesus also taught: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus preached mercy. Mercy is not a technical, begrudging, mean-spirited concession; mercy is generous and broadminded. That is certainly my reading of the New Testament—if I were to seek religious evidence in support of my position.
As a Liberal, I believe in the intrinsic value of life and the individual. When I was younger I used to think I was pro life but then I discovered that there are people who claim to be pro life but who support the death penalty. I found that quite puzzling. Being pro life and supporting the death penalty implies that some lives are more valuable than others. Perhaps such people are pro innocent life—an unborn baby, for example—and believe such life is more valuable than the life of a convicted drug dealer. But that is not the case for Liberals. Unless both lives are preserved, "pro life" is simply a political slogan. Innocence is a subjective concept that requires someone to sit in judgment and declare who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. Frankly, as a Liberal, I find that untenable. I also find it difficult to describe such an attitude as being overwhelmingly pro life. I have puzzled over this matter for many years.
The Hon. David Oldfield said that we opened our arms to two bad blood brothers from Vietnam as refugees and look at how they have repaid us. One was convicted as a drug dealer, and so this motion is before the House. I am sure the story of those brothers is not quite so simple. In the 1980s juvenile justice centres had many Vietnamese inmates but I have noticed on my more recent visits to those centres—since 2003—that that is no longer the case. Instead these detention centres are now filled with disproportionate numbers of boys from the Middle East. The common theme with these detainees is that they are all children born in war zones with a disproportionate tendency to slide into criminal careers. I note that, coincidentally, further research on that matter has been published in the Sydney Morning Herald today. I am certainly not seeking to excuse this man's crimes. As a Liberal, however, I have to point out that nobody is born bad. I do not believe there are any bad babies. There are children and adults who go bad, but it is rarely as simple as the story suggested by the Hon. David Oldfield.
This man is not responsible for the Vietnam war or the loss of Australian life in that war, nor the decision of a young mother to flee the war zone and seek refuge in Australia. He did not kill David Carty, and it is really disingenuous to seek to hang every heinous crime and tragedy in this country on the shoulders of this 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19447 person, who is clearly already in enough trouble. He is responsible for his crime—no more, no less. The Hon. Charlie Lynn said we may have contributed to this man's criminal behaviour, and I must say that certainly struck a chord with me.
Two young Australians overseas in America, colloquially known as Dumb and Dumber, come from the Northern Rivers region. Their families are with them in the United States of America while the sentence for their crime is being appealed by the prosecution. The boys come from good families. I understand that they have been in trouble for some time and it has been suggested to me that a tougher approach to them at a younger age could have averted their continuing to behave in the adolescent way in which they did when they got to America and committed this stupid crime, for which they are now in a great deal of trouble. I am certain that if they had been whipped into shape at a younger age they would not be in this position today.
This motion is not about retrying this man for his crime, or about opinion polls. The simple issue is whether we should stay silent while an Australian citizen is to be put to death in Singapore. If, as all speakers have said, they support the call for clemency and wish to help this man, they should simply support this motion. Quibbling about words will not help him. Indeed, some statements made today, if they were parcelled up and sent to Singapore, were inconsistent with the conclusion that he should be saved. I urge the House to wholeheartedly call for clemency, and I certainly have no problem in supporting the motion in its entirety.
The Hon. JON JENKINS [3.52 p.m.]: At the outset I say I do not support the death penalty. I do not want to turn this motion into a debate about the death penalty as this is not the time or the place and we are not debating legislation. Some speakers have left me aghast by their lack of compassion. I say that in the context of having two young teenage children who are about to head into the world and be exposed to these disgusting leeches who prey on others and destroy their lives for simple commercial gain. However, I believe that some people who commit these atrocious crimes are so broken that they should never be released back into society. In short, some people should die in prison.
I am concerned that this motion will become a political football that will cause division among members of this House. I want to see every honourable member sit on one side of this Chamber when voting to appeal for clemency to the Republic of Singapore. To that end I move that the motion be amended to reflect the motion moved in the House of Reopresentatives by the Federal Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, a colleague of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. I move:
That the question be amended by omitting all words and inserting instead
1. That this House calls on the Government of the Republic of Singapore to spare the life of Mr Van Tuong Nguyen, an Australian citizen who has been convicted of a capital offence in the Republic of Singapore.
2. That this House's request to the Government of Singapore is mindful of the following:
(a) the provisions of the Singapore Constitution which provide for acts of mercy in such cases,
(b) the fact that Mr Nguyen has co-operated fully with the Singapore authorities and the Australian Federal police authorities concerning all relevant matters relating to his conviction, and
(c) certain mitigating personal circumstances surrounding Mr Nguyen.
3. That this House requests the President to convey this resolution to the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore and to the Government of the Republic of Singapore.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.55 p.m.], in reply: At the outset I will deal with the amendment by the Hon. Jon Jenkins, of which I was aware. I checked all resolutions that were carried in the various Houses of Parliament across Australia after I, as the convenor of the Amnesty group in the New South Wales Parliament, received a request from Amnesty International to move this motion. I do not support the amendment, even though it was moved by the Federal Leader of the Opposition, because I believe we need to state at the outset that there is no death penalty in Australia. We need to be up-front with the Singapore Government about our concerns and tell it that we do not have the death penalty in Australia and do not support it.
In relation to the wording of my motion, some honourable members have said they do not like the words "expresses deep concern regarding the decision of the President of Singapore". I do not think their comments are valid because we are dealing with a person who had no prior criminal history and therefore I and a number of other honourable members of this Chamber are deeply concerned that clemency was denied. 19448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Issue has been taken with the fact that the motion refers to Mr Nguyen's full confession and his demonstrable remorse. Members have asked "What proof do we have?" While I am not always prepared to believe the word of some Federal Ministers in this country, Alexander Downer has stated on a number of occasions—given his background as a career diplomat before he came into Federal politics I am more than happy to accept his word that he is well informed—that Mr Nguyen has made a full confession, has been demonstrably remorseful for his actions, and has fully co-operated with both the authorities in Singapore and the Australian Federal police.
No-one has taken issue with paragraph (d) of my motion, which notes the capacity for Singapore to grant clemency. I believe there is no harm at all, and it could not be construed as offensive in any way by the Singapore Government, in our noting the position of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on these matters. The last paragraph asks the Singapore Cabinet to reconsider its decision and show compassion. It is also worthy of support because we are not asking that Mr Nguyen be released and set free with no penalty; we are asking for his death sentence to be commuted to a custodial sentence in accordance with the laws of Singapore. I will not quote the Bible because a lot of other speakers have done that, with greater and lesser degrees of success. We are not telling the Government of Singapore what it should do; we are respectfully requesting it to take into account the views of this Chamber if this motion is passed.
A number of speakers have said, "What right do we have to question the sovereign laws of another country? The laws of Singapore should not be questioned by us." Other countries have many laws that we, as parliamentarians and citizens, do not agree with. The Hon. Rick Colless and the Hon. David Oldfield said we should not interfere with the laws of sovereign countries. But I did not hear them complain about Australia interfering with the laws of sovereign countries when Australia decided to join with the United States of America in invading Iraq, which was not sanctioned by the United Nations. No-one in this Chamber supported the laws of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge when they were in control of Cambodia.
There will always be laws that we do not agree with. As long as we express our concerns respectfully, which the motion does, I cannot see any harm in explaining to other countries why we do not support their actions. Being up-front and saying we do not have the death penalty is part of that. Other speakers have said, "What will we do about the Bali nine if they are given the death sentence?" As half or more of them come from New South Wales, I would hope that we would ask for clemency on their behalf also.
I will not get involved in the argument about the Australian Federal Police sharing information and where the Bali nine were arrested, given that generally we have a Federal policy of not exchanging information that could lead to Australian citizens overseas facing the death penalty. Comments have been made that Mr Mr Nguyen was carrying up to seven kilograms of heroin, which is not the case. He was arrested with a large quantity of white powder which, when tested, was found to contain slightly less than half a kilogram of heroin. We must keep that in mind and not think that he had seven kilograms of pure heroin strapped to his body, because he did not. It is part of the misinformation that has been bandied about in this case.
Mr Nguyen and his family said he had been trying to help his twin brother—not as the Hon. David Oldfield said, two bad blood brothers—who had got into trouble. Yes, his brother had been involved in drugs. Yes, his brother had legal bills. However, his brother did not have gambling debts, as one honourable member suggested. Mr Nguyen was working to try to give his twin brother the money to pay off debts associated with his drug problem. As a last resort he ended up in this situation. He was not doing it for personal profit. He probably was more aware than anyone in this Chamber of the negative impact of drugs. But if he had been told that his twin brother would be killed if he did not help him pay back his drug debts, he would have felt compelled to try to help him. We know that the bond between twins runs very deep.
The rather offensive comment by the Hon. David Oldfield—"Which member of the Nguyen family will be involved in drug trafficking next?"—did not help the debate in any way, shape or form. One would have to be hardhearted to make such a comment, having seen footage of Mrs Nguyen in Melbourne sobbing at the many public rallies to assist the Nguyen family held in Mr Nguyen's hometown under the auspices of Father Peter Hansen from one of the Catholic churches. They have held combined Buddhist and Catholic church services to try to raise public awareness. We have seen Mrs Nguyen and her two daughters on television sobbing. The Hon. David Oldfield's comment was offensive and lacking in compassion, particularly when we are dealing with a motion that asks for compassion. His comments did not help the debate at all.
I will not support, and I advocate that other members do not support, the amendment of the Hon. Jon Jenkins. As I said in my opening remarks and as the Hon. Catherine Cusack said, yesterday the motion was 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19449 passed in the other place as formal business. It was moved by a member of Amnesty International who is a member of the Labor Party and it was supported by a member of the Liberal Party who has been very proactive in trying to garner support for a plea for clemency for this person. I do not know how it will reflect on this House publicly that we have spent most of the day debating the motion, often going off on tangents on law and order, about respect for people in the military service, and about a whole lot of other issues that, in some instances, have verged on racism.
We have done the House a disservice by having this level of debate. As the convener of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group in New South Wales I am proud to have moved the motion, and at the end of our deliberations I hope I will be proud that it has been carried in full, which would show that we do not support the death penalty and that we ask for clemency for Van Tuong Nguyen, a very young man, who, if the sentence is not carried out, has a long life ahead of him. It may well be a long life in a prison cell in Singapore considering his actions, but I am sure that would be some comfort to his mother rather than knowing that he has been hanged in a Singapore gaol for doing something to try to help his twin brother. I urge all honourable members to reconsider their position and to support the motion in full.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 10
Mr Clarke Mr Jenkins Tellers, Mrs Forsythe Mr Lynn Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Mr Gay Mr Ryan Reverend Nile
Noes, 25
Mr Breen Ms Griffin Mr Roozendaal Ms Burnswoods Ms Hale Ms Sharpe Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Harwin Mr Tsang Mr Cohen Mr Hatzistergos Mr West Mr Costa Mr Kelly Dr Wong Ms Cusack Mr Pearce Mr Della Bosca Mr Primrose Tellers, Ms Fazio Ms Rhiannon Mr Catanzariti Mr Gallacher Ms Robertson Ms Parker
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
The PRESIDENT: Order! At the request of the Hon. David Clarke I shall put seriatim questions on the paragraphs of the motion.
Question—That paragraph (a) of the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 29
Mr Breen Mr Gay Ms Robertson Ms Burnswoods Ms Griffin Mr Roozendaal Mr Catanzariti Ms Hale Mr Ryan Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Harwin Ms Sharpe Mr Cohen Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tsang Mr Costa Mr Kelly Mr West Ms Cusack Ms Parker Dr Wong Ms Fazio Mr Pearce Tellers, Mrs Forsythe Mr Primrose Mr Della Bosca Miss Gardiner Ms Rhiannon Mrs Pavey 19450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Noes, 7
Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mr Jenkins
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
Question—That paragraph (b) of the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 29
Mr Breen Ms Hale Ms Robertson Ms Burnswoods Mr Harwin Mr Roozendaal Mr Catanzariti Mr Hatzistergos Mr Ryan Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Jenkins Ms Sharpe Mr Cohen Mr Kelly Mr Tsang Mr Costa Ms Parker Mr West Ms Cusack Mrs Pavey Dr Wong Mr Della Bosca Mr Pearce Tellers, Mrs Forsythe Mr Primrose Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Ms Rhiannon Miss Gardiner
Noes, 7
Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Tellers, Mr Gay Mr Oldfield
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
Question—That paragraph (c) of the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 28
Mr Breen Ms Hale Ms Robertson Mr Catanzariti Mr Harwin Mr Roozendaal Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Hatzistergos Ms Sharpe Mr Cohen Mr Jenkins Mr Tsang Mr Costa Mr Kelly Mr West Ms Cusack Ms Parker Dr Wong Mr Della Bosca Mrs Pavey Ms Fazio Mr Pearce Tellers, Mrs Forsythe Mr Primrose Ms Burnswoods Ms Griffin Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19451
Noes, 7
Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Tellers, Mr Clarke Reverend Nile
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
Question—That paragraph (e) of the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 28
Mr Breen Ms Griffin Mr Roozendaal Ms Burnswoods Ms Hale Mr Ryan Mr Catanzariti Mr Harwin Ms Sharpe Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tsang Mr Cohen Mr Kelly Mr West Ms Cusack Ms Parker Dr Wong Mr Della Bosca Mrs Pavey Ms Fazio Mr Primrose Tellers, Mrs Forsythe Ms Rhiannon Mr Costa Mr Gay Ms Robertson Mr Pearce
Noes, 7
Mr Clarke Mr Gallacher Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Oldfield
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Paragraph (e) agreed to.
Paragraph (f) agreed to.
FAMILY IMPACT COMMISSION BILL
Second Reading
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF INNOCENT ACCUSED) BILL
Second Reading
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.
19452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 20 October 2005
Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.40 p.m.]: I commend the Hon. Peter Breen for introducing this bill, which is worthy of support. The bill would provide for an offence of religious vilification—an issue of importance to the Greens. While many Greens are atheists and others have religious or at least spiritual beliefs, we would not seek to prevent others from practising their chosen religion free from discrimination and vilification. It is important to note that the bill applies to vilification on the basis of both the presence and the absence of religious belief. If someone is an atheist and promulgates the view that religion is superstition and that there is no God and an incensed true believer responds by saying that the atheist deserves to die for uttering such blasphemy, this bill would protect the atheist and allow for the prosecution of the vilifier, and the reverse is equally true.
Without respect and tolerance of diversity democracy cannot survive. Authoritarianism and fanaticism become the order of the day. It is to diminish or prevent this eventuality that democracies stress the importance of the separation of church and State. This is never a perfect separation and it is often undermined as adherents to the more powerful religious persuasions seek to enshrine practices that reinforce their dominance. A small example of this and of the imposition of religion in a civil society is the daily prayer which this House recites and which the Greens are on record as opposing. As an atheist, the daily prayer is irrelevant to me, but it is essential to remember that we are a civil State with no established religion, whose many citizens subscribe either to no religious view or to a variety of religious views not all of which are compatible with the Christian interpretation of the world.
But there is a more compelling reason to support this view and, that is, the current worldwide climate of fear that so many governments, including our own, are so busy promoting. It is a time when, around the world, entire ethnic and cultural groups are being demonised, largely because of the actions of a small minority. In Australia we are being asked to support anti-terrorism laws that cut into our civil liberties. While the Prime Minister denies that these laws are being aimed at any one community, there can be no doubt, as we scan the newspapers and listen to the shock jocks, as to who is being targeted. One of Australia's strengths is our development over decades as a peaceful, multicultural society.
In fact, we have, almost from the beginning of white colonisation, always been an ethnically and religiously diverse multicultural society, whether we look at the Irish who were transported here as convicts, the Chinese who came to the goldfields in the 1850s and the Germans who, desperate to escape Prussian militarism, settled in South Australia in the 1870s. In the period since World War II Australia has offered a home to several million migrants from across the globe. While there have occasionally been tensions, we have not experienced the violence between different ethnic or cultural groups which, in their own countries, are often portrayed as mortal enemies. Australia is now a country of more than 150 nationalities, with maybe 200 ethnicities.
Our community can only work as a cohesive whole if we treat each other with tolerance and respect. I believe that is the purpose of this bill—to ensure that tolerance and respect are guaranteed to everyone. Yet today Australia does face problems. We have only to look at the way in which those of the Muslim persuasion or of Arabic background are encountering rising levels of violence and harassment and are demonised on talkback radio to be aware of how an important underlying principle of our society is being white-anted. Yet people of an Arabic background or of Muslim persuasion have long been part of the Australian population and have been valuable contributions to our economy and society.
This is a time when we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that people of Australia's Arabic or Muslim communities receive the same treatment that all Australians expect and that their human rights and cultural differences are accepted, respected and protected. This is particularly critical at this time when, at an official level, the Federal Government is doing its best to undermine years of peaceful and prosperous growth, co-operation and coexistence with the Arab and Muslim worlds. By invading Iraq on the flimsiest of excuses we have created the probability of destroying decades of long-established good relations with a region that will be of increasing relevance and importance to Australia, both demographically and economically into the future.
People should not judge an entire religion on the actions of a small minority that engages in criminal activities and attempts to justify those actions by claiming to be acting in conformity with a religious belief. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19453
Indeed, if we look through the Bible, the Koran, or other religious texts we find that there are often conflicting messages and different ways of interpreting those texts. During debate earlier in the day there was evidence of how scripture could be quoted to contradictory ends. Virtually all these books—the Bible, the Koran or others— contain words that, usually taken out of context, could justify acts that most people would consider to be criminal.
The Greens support freedom of speech, debate and exchange of ideas, but do not support the spreading of hatred and vilification. That is no way to change things and, clearly, it does not work. Therefore it is incumbent on members of this House, Australia's oldest Parliament, to make it clear that we do not support religious vilification under any circumstances and are prepared to give substance to those words by a show of support for those Australians of Arabic background or of Muslim persuasion and to give leadership on this most critical of issues—an issue that underpins the sort of society that has emerged here and which we hope will gradually emerge around the world. By passing this bill we will show that Australia remains a tolerant society. If we fail to pass this bill we will bear a heavy burden, one for which future generations may not forgive us. The Greens support this bill and urge other members in this place to do likewise.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (EQUALITY IN EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT) BILL
Second Reading
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.
NATIONAL WATER INITIATIVE
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.
SCHOOL STUDENTS' LITERACY LEVELS
Debate resumed from 13 October 2005.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [4.48 p.m.]: When I last spoke in debate on this motion I was discussing the Priority Action Schools Program which, together with the Priority Schools Funding Program, targets schools that have greater needs than others. This important program was initially conceived in 2002 as a one-year program to tackle inequitable standards between schools, with the possibility of extending it into a second year. However, independent assessments of this program have shown it to be so successful that it has been extended into the ongoing program that it is today. The program started with 74 New South Wales schools being provided with funding of between $100,000 and $400,000 to improve learning outcomes for students and support the professional development of teachers in these schools.
A total of $16.1 million was allocated to the program in 2003. Approximately $500—or 6 per cent to 8 per cent—extra funding per student is provided at the schools. The schools targeted by the program are in communities with serious and deep-seated needs. They have been identified on the basis of both educational indicators, such as the results of past testing and attendance and retention rates, and also by using social indicators that show disadvantage amongst the local community. Each school then has an individually tailored package of strategies to factor in problems and issues that are prevalent in the local community. These communities have significant problems ranging from poverty and unemployment to wider problems with housing, mental and physical health, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and child sexual assault. I should add that, unfortunately, rural and indigenous communities are disproportionately represented in this category.
The recent review of the Priority Action Schools Program cited Professor Tony Vinson's studies of disadvantage and his findings that disadvantage is concentrated in particular geographic areas. The review anticipates that this problem will continue but it hailed the Priority Action Schools Program as a good initiative with which to fight disadvantage and as an appropriate response from the education sector. This program has been successful not just in reducing inequality and giving all children a decent chance to get a good start in life, but as part of a range of programs that have boosted educational standards for all students across New South Wales. On 19 October the Minister for Education and Training announced a new range of professional 19454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 development measures for teachers to complement the programs that are already in place. The State Government has committed considerable funds over four years to this initiative, under which all new teachers will spend a minimum of 100 hours over five years taking part in professional development courses. Existing teachers will also be able to take part in these courses on a voluntary basis.
This program follows extensive consultation with the Institute of Teachers. Courses will be approved by the institute, in terms of both content and teaching standard, before they are registered. The Institute of Teachers will also introduce and oversee a new accreditation system to ensure that teachers complete the minimum number of hours. They will maintain an online log of their participation and use this same online facility to evaluate the courses and provide invaluable feedback. Some examples of the types of courses being offered, which were named in the Minister's announcement, include managing adolescent behaviour in the classroom for better learning. Many people in our community are excluded by their poor literacy skills, and that is perhaps the result of bad experiences in the school environment. Classroom behaviour should be monitored to ensure better learning outcomes. Improvement is not just about controlling students. Diverse approaches can make a big difference for students who need to access additional resources in order to improve their literacy.
Other courses offered include the use of information technologies in the classroom, best practice teaching skills in the classroom, what is happening in the world of science, numeracy and literacy improvement programs, teaching Shakespeare for the twenty-first century, and how to use class discussion to promote learning. Those courses should increase student literacy levels. The further initiatives will ensure that teachers in New South Wales will be amongst the world's best, and that, in turn, will help students in New South Wales schools to continue to achieve the world's best results in literacy.
Since I last spoke on this motion, some exciting news has come to hand as the results of this year's Basic Skills Test for year 3 and year 5 students have come in. Almost 168,000 students in government and non- government schools took the Basic Skills Test in early August. The test is compulsory for all public school students in years 3 and 5. It is worth noting that the Basic Skills Test is well regarded as a rigorous test the accurate results of which help to identify the progress of our education system as well as students and schools that need further help. This year's results show that year 3 students achieved the best ever literacy results since testing began in 1990, with a mean score of 50.8 on a scale that ranges from 25 to 65. There has been a gradual and consistent increase in the score since 1996. Meanwhile, year 5 students have maintained their consistently high standard with a mean of around 57. Although that score is slightly lower than the scores from the past couple of years, it is still better than all results for tests taken before 2001, and there has been a noticeable improvement since 1996.
The results are entirely consistent with the last Program for International Student Assessment [PISA], which was conducted in 2003. The program revealed that Australian students were amongst the world's best and that New South Wales students were the best performers in Australia. The results show that the New South Wales Government's programs serve to improve literacy—under the banner of the State Literacy Strategy—and are working. We have the Basic Skills Tests and the English Language and Literacy Assessment [ELLA] to identify any problems with particular students or schools so that they can be targeted and brought up to speed. Specialist literary consultants and literary support teams work with teachers to identify students who need help and then provide assistance to them. The Reading Recovery Program works individually with students who have fallen behind their peers until they are able to read at or above the average standard for their age group.
The Premier's Reading Challenge and Spelling Bee has been outstandingly successful in promoting reading, writing and spelling amongst students. By encouraging students to read outside the classroom, literacy skills will continue to develop. This is a most outstanding initiative. There are programs that specifically target students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those in schools who have particular needs. The Priority Schools Funding Program and Priority Action Schools Program target schools that have greater needs and ensure that those needs are met through carefully targeted resourcing. All these programs have yielded outstanding results, both when assessed through the Basic Skills Test, the ELLA test, and the PISA test and when each of the programs is reviewed in its own right.
The New South Wales Labor Government should be congratulated on introducing the State Literacy Strategy in 1997 and on continually prioritising the education of our children. The Carr and Iemma governments have always held the belief that literacy and numeracy are fundamental skills that all students in New South Wales schools must have because those skills are fundamental to getting a fair go in life. Life is much tougher for people who are without literacy skills as disadvantage becomes entrenched and inequality increases. Illiteracy is not good for those who suffer from it, and it is not good for New South Wales because it indicates 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19455 that the population has a reduced ability to participate in society and contribute to the economy. As members of a fair-minded society, we want to avoid the inequality that illiteracy creates. Literacy skills are among the most fundamental skills people can have and they open many doors that would otherwise remain closed. I congratulate the Government on fighting illiteracy. Literacy programs are incredibly important for the future of New South Wales communities. Illiteracy is humiliating and destructive. That is why these programs are so important.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.58 p.m.]: I enjoy it when Labor members move private members' motions that call on the House to congratulate the Government on the wonderful work that they perceive the Government has done in particular areas. There is no doubt that literacy is important, there is no question that the Coalition supports increased literacy levels among school children, and there is no doubt that we must prioritise the importance of literacy as an essential tool of education. However, on behalf of the Coalition, I take exception to being asked to congratulate the Carr and Iemma governments on their wonderful work in this regard. I am constantly amazed by motions moved in this Chamber that congratulate the Government on its achievements in health, for instance, when our hospitals are struggling and on code red, when people in the health system are in crisis, and when beds are closed.
I am sure that many students and teachers are grateful for the wonderful things going on in their schools and I do not doubt they are happy with a number of the programs. However, for the Government to seek congratulations on its wonderful work on literacy and numeracy in this State is, I should have thought, going too far. I agree—as I am sure every member of this Chamber and all parents and teachers would agree—that literacy amongst children is an essential tool for education and development through life. I do not agree, however, that we should thank the Government for its contribution to literacy amongst children in this State.
At what point does the Government think it deserves a pat on the back, given that students in New South Wales are being left behind other students throughout Australia with regard to numeracy standards—with only the Northern Territory having a worse outcome for year 7 students. Do we pat the Government on the back for the 1 in 14 year 3 students, the 1 in 12 year 5 students, and the 11 per cent of year 10 students who are illiterate in New South Wales? Did Bob Carr not call himself the education Premier? What a great legacy the education Premier has left for all those students.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.
CONSUMER CREDIT (NEW SOUTH WALES) AMENDMENT (MAXIMUM ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9 November 2005.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.02 p.m.]: The Greens support this bill and congratulate the Government on tackling the problem of exorbitant interest and fees charged on short-term loans. Microcredit, or payday loans as they are sometimes called, are smaller value short-term loans. They are unsecured loans, meaning the borrower does not need to provide equity as security or have a credit rating. Borrowers simply agree to have regular debits made from their bank account. Efficient modern loan offices, similar to banks, are often well located in busy shopping precincts, and the prospect of fast easy cash with few questions asked is an attractive option for many people. Unfortunately, excessive fees and charges can make that type of credit a debt trap for the vulnerable.
Payday loans are usually charged at an interest percentage well above that of other financial products. Currently the maximum allowable interest rate is 48 per cent. Unfortunately all lenders add a number of fixed fees and charges to this amount, and this can cause the total cost of the loan to rise to the equivalent of 900 per cent interest on an annualised basis. The bill will require all fees and charges to be included in the 48 per cent cap—a very high interest rate. No-one who has a mortgage, a car loan or a personal loan pays interest even approaching that figure. Even credit cards, one of the most expensive forms of everyday credit available in the mainstream market, do not attract interest above 20 per cent. 19456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
The truth is that payday loans are not designed for people who can get access to more conventional forms of credit. In the vast majority of cases payday loans are used by people who have had all other forms of credit denied to them. Why else would a person choose to pay 48 per cent interest when they can find cash for less than 20 per cent? Payday loans are for smaller amounts, ranging from $100 to $2,000, most are under $500 and the average loan size is $300. Loans are repaid in a matter of weeks, and few extend for periods beyond three months, unless the loan is either extended or rolled over in some form. The micro-finance industry reports that most of its borrowers are employed young people between the ages of 18 and 25. Many people in that age demographic are victims of the casualisation of the work force that has occurred in recent decades. Most of those people have to deal not only with low wages, but also with a sporadic insecure form of income.
Unfortunately many people in Australia struggle to make ends meet—a situation, I might add, that will only get worse under the Federal Government's impending industrial relations changes. As the 2002 report "Pay Day Lending in Victoria " by the Consumer Law Centre of Victoria noted, the average payday borrower has an income of $24,000 per year. While that is low, it is only the average. Many borrowers have incomes significantly lower than that. They are John Howard's working poor and they are the main customers of payday lenders. The micro-finance industry admits that its products are designed to help people experiencing small, short-term cash flow problems—that is, young people, people with no assets, casual workers and Centrelink recipients. The trend is not limited to Australia and has been experienced in other countries. The report "Pay Day Lending in Victoria" notes:
The emergence and expansion of pay day lending as a form of fringe credit in Australia parallels similar developments in other Western industrialised nations. Although there are minor differences in the market players, USA, Canada and the United Kingdom have all experienced similar growth in the alternative financial sector of which pay day lending is the newest entrant.
Factors common across national boundaries offering some explanation for this phenomenon include:
• Deregulation of the mainstream banking industry and withdrawal of services from lower-income services from lower income groups
• Stagnating or declining real incomes amongst low-income workers in a globalised economy.
• Rising levels of credit use across all strata, and
• Increasing levels of household debt and bankruptcy.
For these people, often juggling multiple casual jobs with irregular incomes, robbing Peter to pay Paul from one week to the next, is a part of everyday life. People on low and/or irregular incomes are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. When people are financially stressed, especially when they feel there are few choices available to them, they usually focus on how they can get through the next day, rather than what is in their best long-term interests. Financial counsellors and organisations working with individuals in financial hardship report calamitous stories of people with limited financial resources getting themselves into crippling levels of debt.
An issues paper prepared by the Queensland Office of Fair Trading in 2002 found that people borrowing from fringe lenders are largely excluded from the mainstream banking sector and that is precisely why they are so vulnerable. These problems are not new. For many years numerous financial counselling and social justice organisations have called for reform of the payday lending sector. They include: the Australian Consumers Association, the Consumer Credit Legal Centre, the New South Wales Council for Social Services and the Victorian Consumer Law Centre. All those organisations have campaigned for precisely what is in this bill, and as I said at the outset, the Greens are happy that the Government is finally responding.
But the bill does not go far enough. There are a range of loopholes and deficiencies in the credit code that allow consumers to be exploited by the financial industry. Chief among them is unsolicited offers of increased limits on credit cards. I introduced a private member's bill to address that problem earlier this year, and at the time the Government agreed that the problem of excessive profits being extracted by the financial industry was a serious one.
A number of Government members expressed dismay at the lending practice of credit providers, nevertheless they refused to support the bill. The main justification for doing so, despite agreeing with much of the intent of bill, was that New South Wales needed a national approach. The Government argued that New South Wales could not amend the consumer credit code in any way that would be out of step with other States. At the time the Hon. Amanda Fazio said: 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19457
It is pointless to say that we will introduce super strict regulations into New South Wales. If people living in the same area as Mr Ian Cohen—on the North Coast—were fanatically desperate, they would go over the border to take up offers made by financial institutions in Queensland. Although there is merit in the legislation, passing the bill will not fix the problem.
The Greens are pleased that the Government has seen the error of its ways—it has abandoned its preoccupation with being in lockstep with other States regardless of the injustices to which residents of this State are thereby exposed. We are pleased that New South Wales is taking the lead to amend the law. We hope the Government will consider tackling other weaknesses in the credit code in the near future. Although the Greens' support of the bill is on the ground that it will reduce social hardship among some of the most vulnerable members of our community, we are not totally deaf to the concerns of the industry. This week the Australian Financial Services Association and Micro-Lenders Association of Australia briefed crossbench members and asked us not to support the bill. The micro-lending industry has expanded rapidly since 1995 and now employs hundreds of people across New South Wales. We would not want to see those jobs jeopardised.
The Greens are not opposed to the concept of payday loans. We recognise that there may well be a legitimate need within the market for short-term, non-secured loans. Growth in the number of short-term loans in recent years, up to approximately 42,000 current loans in New South Wales, indicates clearly that there is a market. I have spoken already about the nature of this market. Many, if not most, of the people who take out these loans have nowhere else to turn. The 48 per cent interest rate is high, some would say too high. Certainly most people with other options would not choose to pay such a high rate. However, the fact that payday borrowers have nowhere else to turn does not mean that they should be exploited by an unregulated market. Even under this bill the disadvantaged will pay far more for their credit than those wealthy enough to borrow money for houses and cars, and to use credit cards. Clearly, this is unjust.
Many would argue that an interest rate so high is exploitative. Few people with other options would choose such a rate. It is this very fact that makes regulation of the industry so important. The Hon. John Ryan suggested that the passage of the bill could result in disadvantaged people being forced into the hands of even more rapacious or unscrupulous lenders. Therefore it is all the more important that the Government is conscious of this possibility and acts swiftly to curtail such activities. The pawnbroking industry might be a good place to start. The Greens do not believe in unbridled free enterprise simply because the market exists. As a society we have a responsibility to ask ourselves what is a fair and reasonable rate of credit to charge people with nowhere else to go. The Greens believe that 48 per cent is too high. We would like to see the profits of the financial industry curtailed, particularly when they are the result of exploitation of many of the poorest members of the community. We congratulate the Government on introducing this long overdue legislation, and only hope that more is in the pipeline to rein in the financial industry and reduce its excessive profits.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.13 p.m.]: I have some concerns about the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Amendment (Maximum Annual Percentage Rate) Bill, which will amend the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act 1995 to extend the maximum annual percentage rate inclusive of fees and charges to all credit products, with the exception of specified products offered by authorised deposit-taking institutions. In 2001 the consumer credit code was amended to bring payday lenders under the code that applies to all credit for personal, domestic or household use. In New South Wales, where a maximum annual percentage rate applies to all consumer credit, the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act was amended to apply a maximum rate inclusive of fees and charges to contracts for a period of less than 62 days. Payday lenders were required to disclose an annual percentage rate, which previously they had included as a fee.
Following these amendments the payday lending industry started to offer longer-term loans, and this allowed them to circumvent the inclusive maximum annual percentage rate requirements. The bill applies the requirements for an inclusive maximum rate to all contracts, with specified exemption for authorised deposit- taking institutions. The bill will amend the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act 1995 and the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Special Provisions Regulation 2002. As other members have indicated, we were briefed by representatives of what is called the micro-lending industry in New South Wales—Paul Baril, President of the Australian Financial Services Association; John Brady, Company Secretary and Compliance Director of City Finance Franchising Pty Ltd; and Phillip Smiles representing Cash Converters, Aussie Loans, Cash Loans, Loans by Phone and reporting to the executive of the Micro-Lenders Association of Australia. Previous speakers raised reservations about the impact of the legislation, which may not be what the Government intended.
When one considers that 42,000 loans are currently active in the micro-lending industry and that 200,000 individual loans were provided last year, one sees how this industry has expanded dramatically. Other western nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America have experienced 19458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 similar expansion to meet a need in society. If the legislation closes down the micro-lending industry, where will the 200,000 individuals access small loans? The danger that is becoming clear to me, and I am sure it is not the Government's intention, is that the passage of the bill may force people to borrow from loan sharks or people working on the fringe of society who are closely associated with criminal activity, and this would put people seeking these loans at risk of intimidation or even violence if they cannot meet the requirements of the loan.
The bill targets the providers of small loans—that is, loans averaging $300. One of the main advantages of such loans—which are used to pay car registrations, electricity bills or some other unexpected bill—is that they can be obtained from micro-lenders without security. Micro-lenders seem to be able to assess within minutes whether borrowers will meet their repayments and, therefore, that they will not lose their money. Micro-lenders have to ensure that they do not go bankrupt as a result of bad debts. Most of the loans are taken for a period of weeks only and rarely exceed six months.
The Government may not be concerned about whether the micro-lending industry is put out of business because it may consider people can get loans from banks. However, one must meet the requirements of those banks, which always require security. Banks also do not want to be involved in extensive paperwork involving intensive staff hours, so they have minimum loans. The minimum loan for the Commonwealth and St George banks is $3,000, the minimum for the ANZ Bank is $5,000, the minimum for the Select Credit Union is $10,000 and the minimum for the Greater Building Society is $2,000. This forces many people to use their credit cards, which is what they are trying to avoid because of the high interest rates. Many individuals get into serious trouble because it does not take long for their credit limit to be reached and they can only afford to make the minimum repayment. Banks benefit when people can afford to pay only minimum repayments of, say, $20 on a credit card debt of $1,000 or even $5,000 because of the high interest rates. If this bill is passed it will drive even more individuals to take on more credit card debt.
Micro-lenders have indicated that they do have a small administrative charge for small loans, which is the reason for an interest rate plus fees. These are calculated depending on the amount of money being borrowed. If this bill is passed, people will be forced into the hands of criminal loan sharks or, alternatively, the Government will have to provide more money to welfare agencies and charities to assist people in urgent need of funds. I understand that various studies are being undertaken in Queensland and Victoria and that a number of reports will be released within weeks. Therefore it would be more prudent for this debate to be adjourned so the Government can study those reports and then amend the bill to make it more workable.
A legal micro-lending industry has many practical benefits. It must be regulated and controlled. I understand that the Government has not consulted widely with representatives of the micro-lending industry, and that is not good governance, particularly when it affects so many people. I understand that 200,000 people borrow money each year from micro-lending outlets. Micro-lending businesses are easy to find. They are regulated and operate from retail premises or associated registered offices. Generally they operate in high profile shopping areas so they are easily available to customers. The industry employs more than 1,000 full-time and part-time workers. In 90 per cent of cases loans are less than $5,000. The industry has complied with changes in legislation and regulations in New South Wales, with the assistance of solicitors.
I received a deputation from the micro-lending industry, which informed me that no State Fair Trading officer has received any complaint or initiated any regulatory punitive action as a result of any complaint by a borrower. Complaints have been made about loan sharks and the credit card rates of banks. The micro-lending industry does not take security over essential household items. Fees and charges levied by the industry, as distinct from interest, allow for the recovery of all costs incurred in processing, granting, and maintaining loans over $5,000. I believe it would be dangerous to pass this bill in its present form without amendment, particularly without any input from the Victoria and Queensland reports to which I referred. Therefore I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
The House divided.
Ayes, 14
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Lynn Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Reverend Nile Mr Ryan Mrs Forsythe Mr Oldfield Tellers, Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Colless Mr Jenkins Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19459
Noes, 18
Ms Burnswoods Ms Hale Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Mr Hatzistergos Dr Wong Mr Cohen Mr Kelly Mr Costa Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Della Bosca Ms Robertson Mr Primrose Ms Fazio Mr Roozendaal Mr West Ms Griffin Ms Sharpe
Pairs
Ms Cusack Mr Donnelly Mr Gallacher Mr Macdonald Mr Gay Mr Obeid
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I am confident that the bill provides assurance for vulnerable consumers in New South Wales that the credit being offered is affordable and does not come at such a high cost that it is likely to send them into a debt cycle. In addition to the high cost of this type of credit, payday lenders may also engage in undesirable practices such as obtaining open-ended debits from bank accounts and unreasonable security over property, including household goods.
It is clear from some of the contributions that have been made to the debate that some clarification is required. I will begin with the Hon John Ryan's concerns. At length he attempted to imply that the Minister did not take the time to consider the concerns of the Australian Financial Services Association. The level of consultation with the association and the industry was extensive. Let me examine the Opposition's concerns. It asserted that the Minister for Fair Trading did not take time to consider the concerns of the Australian Financial Services Association. I am afraid the honourable member who made these assertions has been badly misled. The level of consultation with the association and the industry was extensive.
After the consultant who represented the Australian Financial Services Association wrote to the Minister, I understand that the Minister's chief of staff and policy adviser met the lenders and followed up with another meeting that was attended by departmental advisers. The Minister was fully briefed on these meetings and the concerns of the lenders. Ultimately she asked for the legislation to be reviewed a year after its commencement. When informed that this was the Minister's decision, the lobbyist expressed some disappointment that there would be no changes to the bill, but was grateful for the professionalism of the Minister's office.
The Hon. John Ryan listed a number of concerns raised by the Australian Financial Services Association and City Finance. Those concerns were contained in the submission of those organisations and were carefully considered before the bill was drafted. During meetings between representatives of the Minister's office, the Australian Financial Services Association and City Finance, the issues, as reiterated by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, were raised. It has been suggested that the only alternative to fringe lenders is loan sharks, but that is simply not true. The argument was tried in 2001 when the earlier amendments were introduced. There is no evidence that this has occurred.
Both the Hon. John Ryan and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans referred to the Canadian fringe lending industry, which has existed longer than the New South Wales industry. In a Canadian study, which included a survey of payday borrowers, it was found that there was not a great deal of evidence to support the proposition that people would turn to more extreme forms of lending if payday loans were prohibited. None of the survey respondents in that study indicated they would use loan sharks if they were unable to access credit from payday lenders. The most common alternative indicated in the survey was obtaining money from family and friends, and the next most common alternative was to approach mainstream financial institutions, such as banks or trust companies. 19460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
It is also evident when looking at the market in New South Wales that, despite assertions in 2001 that bringing payday lenders under the auspices of the Consumer Credit Code would force consumers into the arms of loan sharks, there is no evidence to suggest the assertions ever came to fruition. It has been alleged that the bill will bring about the abolition of the legitimate micro-lending industry. It is not the intention of the bill to abolish fringe lenders. Rather, it is to catch the credit providers who have been avoiding the intention of the consumer credit laws and to ensure that the consumers of New South Wales will be protected against unscrupulous lenders. If the Hon. John Ryan had listened to the debate in the other place, he would have heard that the options that are available to consumers are much more affordable and reasonable.
New South Wales has a number of alternatives to fringe lenders. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile should listen carefully to what I am saying. The alternatives were spoken about at length in the other place. For the benefit of honourable members, including the Hon. John Ryan, I point out that the alternatives include credit unions, GE Money Australia, No Interest Loan Schemes, which has 28 active schemes currently operating in New South Wales, Centrelink grants, and micro credit schemes similar to those operated by Barnardos. Also, banks are expanding their product base to include small loans.
During the meeting with representatives of the Minister's office, the Australian Financial Services Association sought to justify the industry's high fees and charges. As mentioned earlier, there are huge discrepancies in the information submitted to the Department of Fair Trading on the cost of providing credit. Representations from City Finance and the Australian Financial Services Association suggest that fees and charges for loan establishment and account keeping compare favourably with those of the banks. The St George Bank's establishment and account-keeping fees are $150 and $17.50 per month, and are marginally cheaper than the association's fees.
City Finance takes bills of sale on personal goods to secure loans. We can only imagine what it must be like for people who have borrowed at exorbitant rates and have to worry not only about paying their bills but also about what will happen if they miss a payment and their children's beds are taken by the credit provider. In addition to that, they are charged for the privilege of having their goods valued. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs has not looked favourably on this practice and is currently examining ways of curbing its use.
The Australian Financial Services Association claimed that no research has been done into the micro- lending industry in New South Wales. The Office of Fair Trading undertook research of the micro-lending industry earlier this year by sending letters to more than 30 credit providers who were identified as fringe lenders. The request for information on their operations included details of loan products that are offered and their cost to consumers. A wealth of information was received that substantiated that numerous fringe lenders offer products at high interest rates, with excessive fees and charges.
In April 2005 the Government released the draft bill for public comment, and 14 submissions were received from industry, industry bodies and consumer groups. Fair Trading undertook further consultation with the micro-lending industry to obtain details of the costs associated with granting credit. In this regard, letters were sent to micro-lenders in June 2005 requesting further information. Recipients included the Australian Financial Services Association. The industry was given numerous opportunities to clarify the cost of providing credit. The information received in response to Fair Trading inquiries was widely varied. City Finance, for example, charges a $4 monthly account keeping fee, while members of the Australian Financial Services Association charge $19.50.
The irregularity and inconsistency of the charges and fees associated with these loans strongly suggest there is opportunity for fringe lenders to operate more efficiently. Indeed, Fair Trading did get information indicating it was feasible for lenders to operate under a 48 per cent cap. It has been suggested that New South Wales should wait until the credit review in Victoria is completed and should wait for the outcome of the two- year review in Queensland. As well as the research undertaken in New South Wales by the Office of Fair Trading, Queensland and Victoria are currently involved in projects involving the fringe lending industry. New South Wales is, of course, in regular communication with the other states on this matter. Victoria recently announced it is providing funds to research the micro-lending industry in Victoria.
Queensland is the lead agency on a national fringe lending project. It should be noted that whilst the paper addresses concerns about practices of the fringe lending industry, it does not enquire into maximum interest rate caps. The paper acknowledges that interest rate caps are an issue for each State and Territory. However, I understand that several States, including Western Australia and Queensland, are currently investigating implementing a maximum interest rate cap. The Queensland report highlights the concerns of 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19461 many States about the impact of high-cost loans. The Queensland report noted that in some circumstances it is not in a consumer's best interest to be able to access credit from a fringe lender. The report raises concerns similar to those voiced by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.
For some low-income earners it is more advantageous that, with the assistance of a financial counsellor, they come to an arrangement with their creditors for a moratorium on interest payments or a consolidation of their debts rather than borrow more money to pay existing debts. It is interesting to note that page 30 of the fringe lending paper identified that fringe lenders operate for their own benefit and that this market is unlikely to have an interest in limiting profits to address problems faced by borrowers. Griffith University in Queensland has also examined the key issues surrounding the cost of consumer credit. In August the university issued a background paper entitled "High Cost Loans: A Case for setting maximum rates". The paper looked at controls to protect consumers from exploitation, controls to ensure that consumers pay fair rates, controls to address the problem of unequal bargaining power, the effect that high-cost credit has on reducing asset-building capacities, and the lack of competition that permits excessive pricing and inefficiencies.
The Hon. John Ryan was again wrong in suggesting that banks would not need to comply with the bill. Aside from some product exemptions, such as overdraft facilities, banks and credit card products will be required to comply with the provisions of the bill. The Hon. John Ryan is naive to think that these usually vulnerable consumers would necessarily have the capacity to advocate for better lending conditions. I appreciate that Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes can understand the difficulties these people may have—he understands, unlike the Hon. John Ryan, the plight of vulnerable consumers when dealing with fringe lenders. Further I note that Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes acknowledged the conflicting information about fringe lending from his experience in Wesley Mission and his conversations with members of the industry.
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and others had concerns about the retrospectivity of the bill. Allow me to clarify that credit contracts in existence before the amendments are introduced are not in breach, regardless of whether the inclusion of fees and charges to the calculation of the maximum annual percentage rate would breach the maximum rate of 48 per cent, if calculated after the amendments commence. However, if a credit provider wishes to introduce a new fee or charge in relation to those contracts, a calculation must be made to ensure the contract would not exceed the maximum rate. I believe that the bill allows credit providers to continue to earn a living from the offering of small amounts of credit whilst ensuring that the products they offer are affordable to low income earners.
I add that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was incorrect in one respect concerning alternatives to mainstream lenders. Some credit institutions do lend less than $2,000, and I have a list of them. In response to a question from the Hon. Jon Jenkins, I advise that the Minister's office has provided an undertaking to write to the Federal Government to urge the distribution of information through Centrelink about their grants and short- term loans. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.49 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN [5.50 p.m.]: The Opposition put forward a strong case requesting the Government to delay this legislation. We just heard a most pathetic response by the Hon. Henry Tsang, on behalf of the Minister, as to why it should not be delayed. The strong case we put forward for delaying this legislation was that the Minister had not availed herself of the opportunity to meet with people with strong financial interests who want to ensure that this legislation is appropriate. The Minister said that the Australian Financial Services Association had been given ample opportunity to put forward its concerns and that those concerns had been properly considered.
Let me give to the House the version of the Australian Financial Services Association, which is accurate, as to what occurred during these so-called attempts at consultation. First, there was no ministerial consultation with industry, something that was admitted by the Hon. Henry Tsang who responded to the debate 19462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 on this bill on behalf of the Minister. He said that other people spoke to industry representatives but that the Minister did not. We were told that industry was given a hearing by the Department of Fair Trading and the ministerial office so it was not necessary for the Minister to hear any more as she had been thoroughly briefed on the outcome of those conversations.
The Minister has a responsibility to meet people and to listen to their concerns. If she does not want to do that what the hell is she doing in this job? Believe it or not, the Minister met with one group in relation to this legislation. This issue is so similar to the Orange Grove issue. Some people are given an opportunity to come to the table but others are not. The organisation that met with the Minister and had an opportunity to put its concerns to her just happens to be the very organisation that lobbied members of Parliament to ensure that this legislation goes through the House today.
The Minister has a special open door policy. If an organisation agrees with her position it gets to see her. If it does not, it gets to meet with her chief of staff, her ministerial advisers or other departmental advisers. Anybody who challenges the Minister's thinking on this issue is not given that chance. So that did not happen. No industry delegation met with the Minister or was given an opportunity to do so, despite numerous requests before the legislation was tabled. An additional problem is that this legislation was tabled with very little notice of that tabling given to industry. Industry made urgent representations to the Minister and she still would not afford it an opportunity to meet with her. What a disgraceful performance!
Since issuing a news release and thereafter introducing this bill in Parliament the Minister has been too busy to see anyone from industry. No letter announcing the Minister's intention or communicating any other matter was ever sent to the major industry representative body. The Minister has not given any indication as to when the bill might become law so that the micro-lending industry can plan for an orderly closure. The Minister made no effort to provide industry with a copy of her news release announcing, for the first time, her legislative plans. Since the Minister is always so busy, no person was ever delegated by her to have contact with industry on her behalf.
While industry was totally ignored by the Minister at least one organisation was not. That is evident from the co-ordinating of her news release by her media contact with the Consumer Credit Legal Centre. According to the Australian Financial Services Association that centre does valuable work. Notwithstanding its views, which are based on a few complaints critical of micro-lenders, it deserves to be listened to. However, in the interests of balance, industry should have been provided with at least some opportunity to communicate with the Minister before the legislation was finalised. One group with an interest in this legislation assisted the Minister to co-ordinate her announcements, but no opportunity was given to the major industry group to see this brainless Minister.
That is totally unlike the situation in other States, in particular, Queensland and Victoria, which are currently completing major consumer credit reviews. They demonstrated great courtesy and their departments and the Minister's officers initiated numerous contacts as those reviews proceeded. The Hon. Henry Tsang told us that research into this matter is being conducted in Victoria and in other States. The last thing those States would do is to table legislation in their parliaments through press release, agree to that legislation in a few weeks time, and not give any organisation that wants some sort of briefing an opportunity to speak to departmental officers. The situation is different in Victoria and in other States. Those States are initiating discussions with micro-lenders and seeking their co-operation and assistance.
Industry's position has not been considered and ministerial staff did not take into account its arguments prior to the Minister's second reading speech. Industry was denied access to the Minister at any time. An industry delegation was finally granted two meetings with the Minister's officers. People from the Office of Fair Trading also attended the second meeting. The first meeting was hastily convened three hours after the Minister read her second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly. The Minister's chief of staff and her policy adviser on consumer credit attended that meeting.
The second meeting was convened nine days later. The office's principal policy adviser and policy adviser, credit, who had co-ordinated the collection of comment documents in May, were in attendance. Industry discussion occurred after the Minister tabled this legislation in the other House. What a great opportunity for consultation! The bill had been drafted and it had already been sent to Parliamentary Counsel, and the press release announcing these great changes to the law had been co-ordinated by one of the advocacy groups. However, the industry group was given no opportunity to see the Minister until the legislation had been introduced in the other place. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19463
When industry asked for a meeting it saw only the Minister's chief of staff and people from the Office of Fair Trading. But there is more. On their own admission, no policy adviser or any other ministerial staff member even bothered to read the submission of the major industry representative body prior to the Minister's second reading speech. Apparently, that was admitted in the meeting. So the legislation had been drafted and they had not even bothered to read any submissions from the industry association. On their own admission no- one in the Minister's office made any attempt to inquire about the economics of industry prior to the bill being tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
Prior to the introduction of this bill, the Minister's policy adviser on consumer credit, on her own admission, was selective in her reading. She acknowledged she was aware of the contents of the submissions of a number of welfare organisations prior to the bill being introduced, but said that she had no knowledge of the submission of the major industry representative body. The Minister's policy adviser gave no indication that she had attempted to contact the major industry representative body or any lender prior to the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Assembly. The Minister's chief of staff admitted he knew very little about the issues.
Neither officer indicated that they had ever worked in the credit, banking or finance industry. The Office of Fair Trading made no effort, beyond accepting written comments in regard to the discussion of the draft bill that was released in April. Thereafter, there was no research into borrowers' needs, motivations and actual alternative borrowing opportunities; no opportunity provided for general public comment by way of open forums or the like; no opportunity provided for discussion between the industry representative and the office; and no opportunity for industry to respond to any concerns the Office of Fair Trading might have had during consideration of those submissions.
No review or consideration process timetable, apart from a closure date for written comments, was ever announced. After the closure date for written comments the industry representative who made contact with the policy officer designated to receive written comments was simply told that the office was collecting more information, or that there was no determined timetable. No correspondence was ever received from the Office of Fair Trading during the consideration process. No contact was ever initiated by the office. A commencement offer to inform the major industry representative body when the office had reached a conclusion was not fulfilled.
No paper outlining the office's final position and its rationale for recommendations was circulated for comment. A chance phone call by a representative from the major industry body established that not only had the office concluded its consideration, but the Minister had put out a news release the day before and was due to table the bill within days. That is an outline of the way in which this Government engages in consultation with an important industry body.
The Hon. Ian West: Do you agree with having industry bodies?
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: There is nothing wrong with having industry bodies.
The Hon. Ian West: The Federal Government is opposed to it.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: The honourable member should not be ridiculous. If he wants to stand by those sorts of smart remarks he should do so. The introduction of this legislation so closely resembles the Orange Grove debacle that there is almost a case to return it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times and that the member who has the call should address his or her comments through the Chair and not to other members.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: The report of the Australian Financial Services Association Incorporated reveals that the Minister's consultation on this legislation was criminally negligent. There was no proper consultation. How can Labor members argue that the Minister was so busy that she did not have time at least to meet industry representatives? One would think that, in light of the Orange Grove experience, the Minister would take a balanced approach. But she obviously did not do that in this case. One group had an opportunity to put its special case to government. The Government cannot deny that. Is it not odd that on the day the bill was introduced in Parliament and it was suggested that its passage be delayed I received a fax of some pages from the Consumer Credit Legal Centre, pleading the case that the legislation had to be passed in a single day? 19464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
I wonder who asked the centre to do that. We are all experienced in such matters. The Consumer Credit Legal Centre had no reason to write spontaneously to all members of Parliament. I bet it was asked to do so by the Minister's office. There is clearly a special relationship between the Minister's office and that particular lobby group but the industry had no opportunity to make a submission to the Minister.
This is our last opportunity to reject the bill. The Opposition will not fall into the Government's trap and oppose the bill: we will allow it to pass. But I must put on record the Minister's disgraceful performance in refusing to consult the industry about the bill. I find offensive the rather smart-alec remarks in the Minister's response, no doubt drafted by those in the office of Minister Beamer. Members in this House were abused for having the temerity to ask questions. The Minister extends us no courtesy so she may not expect much from me in the future. What did we ask? We asked for the bill to be delayed until next week so that the Minister could meet with the consumer group. But apparently that request was too great—it was a bridge too far for this Government. The Government does not want to know about commonsense; it thinks it knows it all—even though officers told the group that they had not read its submissions, they did not understand everything that had been said and they had never worked in the industry. Yet the Government is prepared to gun the bill through Parliament in a week without at least giving the industry the opportunity to make its submissions to the Minister with carriage of the bill. That is what the industry asked for and I think it is a disgrace that it did not get that opportunity. I put those remarks on the record before the bill is passed.
The Hon. JON JENKINS [6.02 p.m.]: I realise that the bill is about to be passed but I am concerned about what will happen to the desperate people who, as a result of this bill, will be driven into the arms of sordid loan sharks. I would like the Government at least to give an undertaking that it will educate people through Centrelink not just about Centrelink loans but about the legitimate loan industry and short-term lenders. Many volunteer and charitable organisations give short-term loans. I hope that the Office of Fair Trading will undertake to educate as many people as it can about legitimate alternatives for short-term lending.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.04 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
It is very appropriate that the Government is introducing this bill today, the 8 November 2005. Not just because it is State Emergency Service awareness week…And because this year our SES is celebrating its 50th anniversary and its proud record of dedicated service to the community over this time…
But because as we speak, there are hundreds of SES personnel in the field protecting their communities from rising flood waters and helping people get back on their feet after storms and flooding rains.
I am certain that many Members would be aware that, the SES had its genesis in the disastrous floods that swept through the Hunter Valley, the Central West and the North West of the State in February of 1955. More than 20,000 homes were flooded and 25 people died, making this one of Australia's worst natural disasters. With no organised emergency service in place to take control and offer assistance to flooded residents, the State Government of the day saw the need to establish an organisation to coordinate future response efforts to help communities affected by floods.
This led to the formation of the organisation that has since developed into the modern and efficient State Emergency Service we know today. With approximately 9000 volunteer members in 232 Units, the SES is now the most versatile and widely used rescue and public safety organisation in New South Wales. These volunteers perform heroic tasks in the most difficult of conditions. Their willingness to help others in need, often at considerable risk to their own safety, is their defining characteristic. Over the past 50 years, they have played a role in some of the State's most significant natural and human disasters, including the Sydney hailstorm, the North Coast floods, the Granville train disaster, the Thredbo landslide and the Newcastle earthquake.
This Government is proud to support our SES volunteers, committing unprecedented levels of funding - totalling almost $273 million - to the Service over 11 years. It is fitting that in its golden anniversary year, the SES budget has reached an all-time 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19465
high of $40.6 million – an increase of $6.3 million over last year. This includes funding for a new around-the-clock emergency call centre and more than 40 new staff to support the community and the volunteers.
A range of anniversary celebrations are taking place this week. A street parade will be held through Sydney City on Saturday (November 12). Not only will this be an opportunity for members from around the State to get together but also for the community to thank the volunteers in orange for their hard work and commitment. The Government was pleased to support the striking of a commemorative 50th anniversary medallion for each SES member in recognition of their valued service. The SES also is telling its story, in a book by its former Deputy Director General, Chas Keys. The Minister for Emergency Services will launch In Times of Crisis on Friday (November 11).
The 50th anniversary also was an opportune time to review the State Emergency Service Act to ensure it has kept pace with and provides the legislative support for the organisation's development as a modern, efficient emergency service. The bill now before the House outlines a number of amendments to refine the principal Act to formalise arrangements already in place and better reflect the Service's organisational and operational structure and responsibilities.
The primary function of the SES is to prepare, plan for and lead response operations to assist communities affected by floods and storms. SES volunteers routinely secure tarpaulins to roofs damaged by storms and sandbag levee banks and homes to protect them from floodwaters. When necessary, they evacuate people ahead of anticipated flooding and rescue people trapped in floodwaters. It is important that this broad charter to protect life and property will now be explicitly acknowledged in the functions of the service, in much the same way as in the Fire Brigades Act and Rural Fires Act.
When the Service was established during the dark days of the Cold War, one of the key responsibilities assigned to the SES was for civil defence. The emergence of the terrible threat of global terrorism means we face different challenges today from those in the 1950s. Governments around Australia now have a responsibility to ensure their police and emergency services have the legal powers, resources and training necessary for their roles in counter-terrorism. Civil defence planning is now regarded as a whole- of-government responsibility and is undertaken in NSW by the State Emergency Management Committee through the preparation of emergency management plans. The SES is one of a number of State agencies that would participate in any civil defence operation. For instance, the SES, RFS and Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority are providing the Safety Site Marshalls for the Sydney CBD evacuation plan. In recognition of this wider responsibility accepted across the Government, this bill amends the Act to remove civil defence planning and operations as a sole SES requirement.
One of the significant and symbolic shortcomings of the SES Act is that it makes no reference to the volunteer status of the overwhelming majority of SES members. Especially in its 50th anniversary year, it is important to acknowledge in legislation that the SES is predominately an emergency service comprised of volunteers, thus recognising their invaluable contribution to the State's emergency management and response.
These amendments also formalise a number of practical SES operational and administrative practices and structures. The most fundamental is to recognise the SES Director General's role as the organisation's State Controller. While the SES Act and Regulations provide for the appointment of Controllers at Division, Local and Unit levels, no legislative provision is made for a Controller at State level. This common sense amendment establishes that the Director General is at the head of the chain of command. It follows that the Deputy Director General is the Deputy State Controller.
The operational hierarchy of the Service also will be codified in the principal Act, with the provisions regarding SES Unit Controllers and deputies to controllers being elevated from the Regulations. Each of the 232 SES Units belongs to one of 17 Divisions, whose boundaries coincide as closely as possible with major river systems. Paid full-time Division Controllers are responsible for the control of emergency responses by the SES within their defined geographic area. They operate out of a local Division Headquarters and are assisted by a small number of paid staff members, as well as a group of volunteers who help with training, planning, operational and other functions. For reasons of consistency with the organisational arrangements of other emergency services such as the NSW Ambulance Service, Fire Brigades, Rural Fire Service and the Police, the bill replaces the term Divisions in the Principal Act with the term Regions. This is also consistent with the Australian Inter-agency Incident Management System, reducing the potential for confusion between various agencies. The amendment means that Divisional Controllers will be re-named Regional Controllers and provision is also created for the appointment of a Deputy Regional Controller.
Each SES unit is based in a local government area and its members are led by a Local Controller, who is a volunteer. It is accepted that the amalgamation of a number of local councils in recent years has created a larger geographic area of responsibility and greater workload for some Local Controllers. The bill therefore provides for the appointment of more than one local controller for a local government area, should it be necessary, to help spread the workload on our volunteers who have stepped up to a leadership role.
The bill also provides the Director General with the power to form an SES Unit in response to population growth or identified local hazards, not just on receipt of an application. This will provide the Service with a greater degree of flexibility in responding to local needs. At the other end of the spectrum, the NSW SES can also be called upon to assist communities in other States and Territories - notably Queensland, Victoria and the ACT - to respond to emergencies, particularly major storms. Indeed, the SES Act allows the Director General to make arrangements for inter-State cooperation in such emergencies. However, this provision contains a practical limitation, in that these cooperative arrangements can only be made with agencies that manage and control SES units in the other States and Territories. While the SES exists in most other jurisdictions, it does not in others, such as the Jervis Bay Territory and Norfolk Island. In this regard, these amendments allow the SES to enter cooperative arrangements with agencies in such territories without their own SES.
The bill also contains a range of housekeeping amendments, including the removal of the antiquated term "tempest" from the Act and elevating the provisions on the granting, suspension and withdrawal of SES membership and the procedures for recording donations to SES Units from the Regulation to the Act. The bill also includes appropriate saving provisions. These amendments present a practical series of reforms to support incremental changes and evolving operational arrangements that have been put in place as the SES has grown and developed. 19466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
They have the support of the Volunteer SES Association, the peak body representing the SES volunteers and the Local Government and Shires Associations have expressed no objection. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the SES on its achievement of 50 years' service to the community of this State and to wish its members well for their safety as they work to protect communities across NSW now and through the coming summer storm season. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [6.04 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Coalition on the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill. The Coalition will not oppose the bill. The bill covers the State Emergency Service [SES]—an organisation that is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of its establishment in 1955. It has a very proud record of service. The SES comprises some 9,000 volunteers in 232 units across the State. It does an exemplary job and comprises people who are committed and well trained and who give generously of their time. They work hard in their communities and give of their time to train, assist and support their local communities in a wide range of ways.
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of amendments, which I understand are supported by the SES and volunteers. The bill acknowledges the volunteer status of the majority of SES members. What is typical and consistent is that these people are decent members of the community who are committed to serving their community. The years of service that these people have given to their respective communities is truly extraordinary. The bill recognises the role of the SES to protect life and property during storms and floods. That is one of its core roles. SES workers are recognised by their distinctive orange uniforms when putting tarpaulins on roofs damaged in storms, heavy winds and rain.
The bill removes the civil defence planning function of the SES on the basis that this is a whole-of- government response and is undertaken by the State Emergency Management Committee. The civil defence planning function derives from the establishment of the SES in early 1955, and in this day and age it is understandable and reasonable for that function to be removed. The bill will codify the operational hierarchy of the service, and will specifically identify the role of the director general as the State controller for the SES. The bill provides for SES divisions to be renamed "regions", to use terminology consistent with that of other emergency service organisations, and for division controllers to be renamed "region controllers".
The bill provides for the appointment of more than one SES local controller for a local government area, should it be necessary, to help spread the workload on volunteers. It will allow the director general to establish an SES unit on his own initiative in response to, for example, population growth or identified hazards or needs and not upon receipt of an application, as is the case now. I shall return to that point later. The bill will allow the director general to make arrangements to assist territories that do not have SES units—for example, Jervis Bay. In the second reading speech the Minister referred to Norfolk Island. We believe the intention is to better facilitate SES assistance for other jurisdictions. In some cases the SES could be placed in a position of not acting in accordance with New South Wales legislation. I note that the Volunteer Rescue Association [VRA] is concerned about some of the changes. I understand that the Volunteer Rescue Association has a unit on Norfolk Island. However, we want to ensure that the SES is not put in the position of being unable to assist the territories, including Jervis Bay, where there is no SES unit. The bill will not change the primary function of the SES.
The SES will carry primary responsibility in a number of areas—for example, rescuing people trapped in motor vehicles—and it will have a primary lead and response role in relation to floods and storms. I refer specifically to the concerns of the Volunteer Rescue Association. I note that the bill, having been introduced only about 48 hours ago, has not been in Parliament long enough to enable stakeholders to consider it in great detail. However, the Volunteer Rescue Association has been good enough to contact the shadow Minister, Andrew Humpherson. Other stakeholders may be concerned about, or indeed may support, the bill, but the Opposition is not fully aware of that at this stage.
The concerns of the Volunteer Rescue Association relate primarily to the establishment of SES units. In most cases across the State where SES and VRA units are in close proximity they work well and share members and equipment. On occasions there can be minor difficulties. However, when responding to community need in the event of a rescue or storm, without exception, our volunteers— regardless of which agency or organisation they come from—work in a committed manner, co-operatively, with the primary view of looking after citizens who need their support. However, there have been some longstanding cautions, as I would call them, on the part of the VRA, with the SES having the potential to establish units that may compete for funds or for members.
In 1990, after a number of meetings initiated by the then Minister for Emergency Services, Ted Pickering, an arrangement was reached between the SES and the VRA whereby the SES confirmed that it would not pressure VRA units to become affiliated with the SES, that both operational units would co-operate, and that 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19467 there would be no amalgamation or takeover at a local or a broader level. That agreement was signed by the director, Major-General Horrie Howard, on 3 December 1990, and has been honoured for the past 15 years. The VRA seeks assurance that the agreement will continue, and I therefore ask the Minister to provide such an assurance in his reply.
I refer specifically to some of the concerns brought to our attention. The point is made by and on behalf of the VRA that many regional and rural communities are served efficiently by police, ambulance, fire brigades, and Rural Fire Service and VRA units, and that therefore, if there is to be a new SES unit, one needs to consider this in a wider perspective and not simply from an SES point of view. That seems a sensible observation and comment. The community needs to be consulted about whether there is a requirement for an SES unit, as the community will need to support these units through local government and community funding.
It has also been suggested that the new legislation will lead to friction in communities in which the SES wishes to duplicate existing resources, especially given that the resources were built up with considerable community support. Again, that is a logical observation. If there is potential for friction, that needs to be addressed by the Minister. At this point there is no intention to seek to change the legislation in any way, but if the reassurances that the VRA seeks—and hopefully will be offered—are not accepted, it will cause unnecessary angst.
The VRA has an agreement with the SES regarding non-duplication of units and working together. Overall, this has worked well. The VRA has not been consulted on the new legislation, despite the fact that it is a significant stakeholder. If the bill were not being fast-tracked through the Parliament—as has occurred in the past 48 hours—but were allowed to lay on the table for five days, this debate would not have taken place until next week. The VRA and other potential stakeholders would then have a chance to have a good look at the legislation. However, I am sure that in his reply the Minister will give reasons why he has had to fast-track the legislation. Again, I ask the Minister to take these concerns into account and address them in his reply.
The VRA has a rescue squad on Norfolk Island, which is not New South Wales territory. What are the intentions of the SES in regard to that? We have been given assurances that there is no intention necessarily to establish an SES unit on Norfolk Island, but the bill will facilitate the SES if it needs to assist, on request, on Norfolk Island or in Jervis Bay. The VRA's final concern relates to why the SES director general would want to register any group of people as an SES unit regardless of whether its role falls within the emergency to which the principal Act applies. Any interest, social or cultural group could be registered as an SES unit. Again, there needs to be greater clarity of the purpose behind this.
In some areas of the State there may be a need to establish an SES unit, but the wider community would expect that the unit would not simply duplicate an existing VRA unit that performs a comparable function. If that were to occur, it would not only draw on limited donations from small communities but also draw on limited volunteer numbers. There is a strong need for assurances not just from the Minister who has carriage of the bill but also from the Minister in this House. It would be well received if the Minister were to write to the VRA and any other relevant organisation to clearly assure them that there is no ulterior motive in this regard.
The Opposition has cautious reservations about caveats that may apply to the establishment of new units at the initiative of the director general. However, we do not have any concerns about the wider reforms and the tidying up measures in the bill. It is not inappropriate to make minor changes to the SES. The changes did not have to occur this week, but again we place on record the support from Coalition members across the State for the SES. I reiterate our determination to maintain that support in government after March 2007. We cannot possibly get by without the volunteers in the SES and other emergency service units. I have no doubt that the SES will continue. It is a great service and one that we should be very proud of.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.14 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the State Emergency Service Act to formalise certain organisational, functional and operational changes to the State Emergency Service [SES]. It is opportune that the bill is introduced at this time, because this year the SES celebrates its fiftieth anniversary. As honourable members will be aware, the SES was formed by a Labor Government in 1956 as a result of floods that occurred in the Hunter Valley, the Central West and the North West of the State in February 1955. In that flood more than 20,000 homes were inundated and 25 people died, making it one of Australia's worst natural disasters. 19468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
Obviously, the organisation has grown from that small beginning into the great service it is today. We congratulate the 9,000 volunteer members in the 232 State Emergency Service units, who we all know do a wonderful job—indeed, a sacrificial job—in our State. There are many disasters in our State, such as those that occur as a result of droughts, floods and bushfires, as well as incidents such as the Granville train disaster, the Thredbo landslide, and the Newcastle earthquake. We all remember the many houses that were damaged in the Sydney hailstorm and the efforts of the SES in covering the many houses affected by that storm with tarpaulins to try to protect furniture and personal possessions of the many families.
I take this opportunity on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party to congratulate the State Government on giving high priority to providing funding for the State Emergency Service. As we know, these organisations are manned by volunteers—people who are not paid—but they need funding for equipment and all the other facilities they require to carry out their duties. I congratulate the Government on providing funding to the service totalling almost $273 million over 11 years. It is fitting that in the golden anniversary year of the SES its budget has reached an all-time high of more than $40 million, an increase of $6.3 million over last year. In the area where I live, I have observed the new vehicles that have been supplied to the SES in recent times so its members are well equipped to carry out their duties. I congratulate the Government and the Minister in particular on their wholehearted support for the SES.
The purpose of the amendments provided in the bill is to acknowledge the volunteer status of the majority of members of the SES; recognise the role of the SES in protecting life and property in storms and floods; and remove civil defence planning from the functions of the SES on the basis that it is a whole-of- government responsibility and is undertaken by the State Emergency Management Committee. Obviously, if a civil defence emergency occurred, the committee would have the authority to use another emergency service organisation, whether it be the SES, the Police Service or, I assume for a serious emergency, our defence forces. A further purpose of the amendments is to replace SES divisions with regions to ensure consistency with the terminology used by other emergency service organisations, and as a consequence renaming division controllers as region controllers. We congratulate the Government on introducing the legislation, and we commend the 9,000 SES volunteers who serve our State so well.
Mr IAN COHEN [6.18 p.m.]: I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill. State Emergency Service workers do a highly admirable job in this State, and I congratulate the service on reaching its fiftieth anniversary this week. The service was formed in 1955 after disastrous floods across the State. As members of this House and the other place have noted, the SES comprises approximately 9,000 volunteers in 232 units across New South Wales. The bill outlines amendments to the principal Act to update it and make sure it is in keeping with the times. None of the changes is particularly controversial, and the Greens have no problems with the amendments to the Act. Importantly, the bill recognises in legislation for the first time that the SES is an emergency service made up of volunteers. The Greens are pleased with this recognition, which acknowledges the wonderful contribution that these volunteers make to the State. They contribute their time, undergo extensive training and often put themselves in harm's way to assist others. They play an extraordinary part in securing safety in our society.
The bill extends the functions of the service to the protection of life and property during storms and floods. It is entirely appropriate that this function should be recognised in legislation. After all, the main function of the SES is to prepare, plan for and organise assistance to communities in the event of major storms and flooding. This includes, but is not limited to, evacuating people in flood-threatened areas, rescuing those trapped by floodwaters, trying to protect homes from flooding with sandbags and the like, securing levees, dealing with fallen trees or telegraph poles, protecting homes by securing tarpaulins over roofs, and the like. Some members may have received this type of assistance during the Sydney hailstorms a number of years back, for example. Others have probably had experience with SES assistance in regional areas.
Most recently the service was in action in this week's wild weather and flooding in Western New South Wales. The often dangerous work of volunteers is to be highly commended. Recently I was given the enjoyable task of speaking at a gathering of the Tabulam SES and people from the hierarchy of the organisation. It was an extremely rewarding and interesting night. The people to whom I spoke and met that night really were the salt of the earth. They undertake fantastic feats and expend enormous effort on behalf of their communities. The highly skilled men and women were very deeply imbued with the volunteer ethic and were very familiar with the specific problems faced by a major organisation during times of emergency in the Tabulam area. They do a fantastic job and are certainly a dedicated group of people. The night was worthwhile for me because I gained information and experience and formed new friendships. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19469
The bill also removes the function of civil defence from the service. This function has its historical basis in the establishment of the SES during the Cold War. It is no longer appropriate that the SES has responsibility for civil defence, as this responsibility lies with government, which can then direct the appropriate authorities to take action. This is not to say that the service might not be called on to participate in a civil defence operation, but it should not be one of its primary functions, and it should not have responsibility for it. The Greens support this sensible amendment. The bill makes a number of changes to practical, operational and administrative practices and structures in the Act. I will not go into detail on those, suffice it to say that none of them are opposed by the Greens.
The Greens support the amendment to allow the appointment of more than one local controller for a local government area in recognition of recent council amalgamations. It is entirely reasonable that where council areas have become larger, and the volunteer local controller has to oversee a larger region, there should be provision allowing for the appointment of an additional controller to share the workload and responsibility. The bill gives power to the director general of the SES to form new SES units without receipt of any application. This will give the director general the ability to set up new units in response to population growth or for other necessary reasons.
This sensible measure will allow flexibility and will enable the service to better respond to the needs of communities. With population patterns changing, and current trends such as sea changes and tree changes increasing populations in some regional areas, I can imagine that the creation of new SES units will be necessary. The Greens also support the co-operative measures in the bill that provide for the service being called upon to assist with emergencies in other States and Territories. When disasters occur, be they natural or caused by human activity, we need to be able to rely on our emergency counterparts in other States, and vice versa. I understand that the bill was drafted in consultation with the peak body representing SES volunteers, as well as the Local Government and Shires Association, and that is to be commended. The Greens support the bill.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Mr Ian Cohen for their comments. I am sure all members are pleased to support this bill because of the great work of the State Emergency Service [SES]. The Hon. Charlie Lynn said that the Government wants to pass this bill quickly. The reason for that is this week celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the SES. A number of members have alluded to that. On 12 November, close to 2,000 members of the SES will march up George Street. It is appropriate that this House and the Legislative Assembly have moved swiftly to pass the bill to give SES members some well-deserved encouragement.
I wish to clarify an issue that was raised in the Legislative Assembly and referred to today by the Hon. Charlie Lynn. The amendment to section 18 of the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill provides the director general with the power to form an SES unit at any time, rather than only in response to an application from a group of individuals who express interest in establishing a local unit. This amendment gives the director general the power to act proactively in response to population growth or identified local hazards, rather than just on receipt of an application to form a new unit. This will provide the service with a greater degree of flexibility in responding to local needs.
For instance, the director general may in future identify a need for additional local SES units in developing areas of Sydney—such as in the north-west of the city—which are experiencing significant population growth. This amendment will give him the power to seek expressions of interest from people in those local communities who want to volunteer to join the SES. I understand some concerns have been raised about the possible impact of this amendment on the Volunteer Rescue Association [VRA]. The Government and I value the work performed by the VRA and its members. The VRA and the SES are the two largest primary rescue services in this State. The Government has provided it with unprecedented funding, including $1.2 million this year—an increase of almost 50 per cent over the $800,000 that was allocated the previous year—to assist with these roles.
As was alluded to by the Hon. Charlie Lynn, under a longstanding agreement in areas of the State where there is no local SES unit, the VRA undertakes the flood and storm response functions that an SES unit would otherwise perform. This already occurs in a number of locations, including Cessnock, Narrandera, Corowa and Rylestone, for example. In fact, the director general has appointed the heads of those VRA units as the local or unit SES controllers. The treasurer of the VRA is the local SES controller and uses his unit to operate in his particular area. I give an assurance that the director general will not seek to form an SES unit in any area where a VRA unit is willing and able to undertake the functions of the SES. I am sure every member 19470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 concurs with the comment of Mr Ian Cohen, that our 10,000 SES volunteers are the salt of the earth. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 3 and 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
ROYAL BLIND SOCIETY (MERGER) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.28 p.m.], on behalf of the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, Assistant Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
This ill will give full effect to the recent merging of three charitable agencies supporting the blind and vision impaired, into a new combined agency.
On July 6 2004, the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales, Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Ltd, and Vision Australia Foundation were merged into a combined agency RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd, now known as Vision Australia Limited.
All of the undertakings, property and liabilities of each of the three separate agencies were, where legally possible, transferred to the new body.
The corporate existence of the three agencies has continued. However, it is the intention of the combined agency to wind-up or deregister each of the three agencies as soon as possible.
Each of the three agencies and the combined agency rely heavily on public fundraising, volunteer works, gifts, bequests, dispositions and trust funds.
It was always intended that legacies and bequests left to each of the respective three agencies would be transferred to the combined agency.
However, the Royal Blind Society received legal advice that bequests, gifts and dispositions made to each of the three agencies cannot be automatically transferred to the combined agency.
There is also a risk that other bequests, gifts or dispositions might fail, particularly after the Royal Blind Society is wound-up or deregistered.
The Royal Blind Society's legal representatives requested that legislation be passed to enable bequests and gifts created or granted since 6 July 2004, and in the future, to be transferred to the combined agency.
The three agencies will be wound up after legislation securing bequests, gifts and dispositions, past and future, to each organisation is enacted.
A similar request was made to the Victorian Attorney General, as two of the three agencies were incorporated in Victoria. Victoria has passed legislation which was assented to on 20 September 2005.
Each of the three agencies has a long and distinguished history of providing services to the blind and vision impaired communities in New South Wales and Victoria. The merger will allow them to provide a better and more effective service to these communities.
This bill will ensure that the valuable work of these agencies continues.
I commend the bill to the House. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19471
In July 2004, at the request of these three bodies, the Federal Court approved their merger into one peak body called Vision Australia Ltd. At the time of the merger the assets and liabilities of the three separate organisations were transferred, where possible, to the new entity. While the corporate existence of the three bodies has continued, it is intended that they be wound up or deregistered, leaving only Vision Australia Ltd to carry on the good work that in past years has been carried on by the three organisations acting separately.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that any gifts or bequests not vested before the merger will be treated as gifts or bequests in favour of Vision Australia Ltd. This has been made necessary because of legal advice that gifts and bequests made to the three charitable bodies cannot be transferred automatically to the new body, Vision Australia Ltd. Similar provisions to those in this bill have been passed in Victoria to cover the situation with the two bodies incorporated in that State. Provision is made for the repeal of the Royal Blind Society (Corporate Conversion) Act 2003 by proclamation on or after the date on which the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales is deregistered as a company. This bill is purely technical in nature, but it is of great importance for the continued work on behalf of the blind and visually impaired community, which will be carried on through Vision Australia Ltd.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.31 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Royal Blind Society (Merger) Bill, which will enable the process commenced on 6 July 2004 to merge the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales, the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Ltd and the Vision Australia Foundation into a combined agency, now known as Vision Australia Ltd, to be finalised. In due course the Royal Blind Society will be wound up or deregistered, which would create a problem: What happens to past and future bequests, gifts and dispositions? There could be arguments about whether future bequests and gifts to the Royal Blind Society could be transferred legally to the new organisation, Vision Australia Ltd. This legislation will enable that to happen.
Clearly, each agency—specifically the Royal Blind Society—relied heavily on public fundraising, volunteer help, et cetera, as well as gifts and bequests. With the name change, I wonder whether any effort is being made to maintain or transfer the previous loyalty to the Royal Blind Society or the Royal Victorian Institute of the Blind to the new organisation called Vision Australia Ltd. I hope that is successful. Often when major changes take place, what one might call brand loyalty comes into play and people lose interest in supporting what was a highly regarded, creditable, worthwhile organisation such as the Royal Blind Society.
With the two organisations—the Royal Victorian Institute and the Royal Blind Society—going out of existence, I note that the word "royal" will disappear, and that there is no intention of calling the new organisation the Royal Vision Australia Foundation, which would have been a good suggestion. Australia is not yet a republic. It is a pity that the word "royal", which was a major part of the organisation names, has been dropped. I think it attracted support and donations from people. I hope that the donations will not fall away as a result of these changes. We are happy to support the bill, which will resolve the terrible situation of having money tied up in bequests and unable to be used. We support the bill.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 15 November 2005 at 2.30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.35 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
PORT BOTANY EXPANSION
Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.35 p.m.]: On 13 October the State Government approved stage one of a massive expansion of Port Botany. The Government made its decision despite strong opposition from residents, 19472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 despite the fact that stevedores Patricks and P&O have said they can increase current operations threefold without a major expansion of the port, and despite a commission of inquiry that recommended a much smaller scale development. Despite all this, the Government approved plans for a 51-hectare reclamation of Botany Bay, five new wharves and a massive network of inter-modal freight transfer terminals in Botany, Enfield, Moorebank, Minto, Ingleburn and Eastern Creek. The impact will be felt all over Sydney. Trucks and rail freight trains will haul up to eight million cargo containers per year between the port and inter-modal terminals in a 24- hour, 7-day-a-week operation.
Suburban streets will become industrial thoroughfares. Why is the Government pushing ahead in the face of such widespread opposition? Part of the reason is a deal done with Patricks to move their operations out of Darling Harbour to make way for Labor's developer cronies hungry for harbour sites. Patricks have been promised 18 hectares at Port Botany as part of the sweetener to get them to move. But there is a much bigger agenda. Labor's big business constituency—companies such as Woolworths, Coles, Coca Cola, TNT, BlueScope Steel and LG Electronics—have bought huge tracts of land in Western Sydney for their distribution networks. This land is located close to the planned network of freight inter-modal terminals and along the soon to be opened M7. It is not as though there were not alternatives.
The Government could have chosen to decentralise freight services and to develop Newcastle and Wollongong to alleviate any pressure to expand Port Botany. But this is not the way Labor operates, and it is not what its big corporate confreres want. They are pushing for a centralised freight system that plugs directly into land adjacent to inter-modals and key motorways—land they own. This ambition was spelled out in a report, "Railing Port Botany's Containers", released by the Freight Infrastructure Advisory Board in July this year. The report stated:
Sydney's future network of inter-modal terminals [should] be connected to Port Botany by way of dedicated freight lines …
The report further stated:
Terminals are to be located adjacent to, and with good access to, key arterial road corridors, particularly the M4, the M5 and M7.
The report recommended:
Sydney's future network of inter-modal terminals be treated as critical infrastructure under New South Wales planning provisions.
Invoking the critical infrastructure provisions of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act means that all the normal environment and community consultation provisions governing development will be bypassed, and any development will be approved at the direction of the Minister. This Government has not been honest about its plans for Port Botany. The port currently handles just over one million containers or 20-foot equivalent units [TEUs] per year. The expansion has been justified to accommodate industry projections of three million TEUs by 2021. However, the stevedores say that they could accommodate three million TEUs if existing facilities were reconfigured.
They say that the 51-hectare expansion would in fact allow up to eight million TEUs to be handled. This is a staggering increase in anyone's language. Even the projected three million TEUs will lead to an additional 2,000 trucks per day on Sydney's roads. The only way Sydney could accommodate anywhere near eight millions TEUs is with a major increase of the motorway network—a tunnel under Marrickville linking the airport to Parramatta Road, the M4 East extension, the M7, and major upgrades to the M5. All this will be a foregone conclusion.
A projected tripling of aircraft movements into and out of Kingsford Smith and the airport's plans for eight-storey car parks, shopping centres, office buildings and a cinema complex will be the final nail in Sydney's coffin. Sydneysiders do not want a city designed around the profit-driven needs of Labor's big corporate donors. We want a Government making planning decisions designed to serve the needs of the community, create a more liveable city, and balance economic needs against social and community needs; planning decisions made to curtail and control corporate greed, not to facilitate it. Sydney cannot cope with a massive expansion of Port Botany. Nor do we need it. It is time to say enough is enough, to reverse the decision to expand Port Botany, and to begin to plan for the whole community, not just the few.
Suburbs likely to be affected by the Port Botany expansion include Port Botany to Ingleburn-Minto, Tempe, Turrella, Earlwood, Kingsgrove, Beverly, Hills, Roselands, Revesby, Panania, Milperra, Moorebank, 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19473
Liverpool, Casula, Glenfield, Macquarie Fields, Ingleburn, and Minto. Suburbs between Port Botany to Enfield likely to be affected by the Port Botany expansion include Botany, Banksmeadow, Mascot, St Peters, Marrickville, Sydenham, Leichhardt, Petersham, Haberfield, Ashfield, Croydon, Five Dock, Burwood, Strathfield and Enfield. Suburbs from Enfield to Eastern Creek likely to be affected by the Port Botany expansion include Homebush, Lidcombe, Newington, Silverwater, Harris Park, Granville, Parramatta, Merrylands, Wentworthville, Pendle Hill, Greystanes, Prospect, Huntingwood and Eastern Creek. Suburbs from Eastern Creek to Minto likely to be affected by the Port Botany expansion include Abbotsbury, Horsley Park, Cecil Park, Hoxton Park and Hinchinbrook.
MACQUARIE MATRONS GALA BALL
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.40 p.m.]: I advise the House of the efforts of a highly dedicated group of young women who have been working tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all people living in rural and regional areas of New South Wales. These inspiring people incorporated their group as the Macquarie Matrons in 1998. With backgrounds in science, finance, journalism, public relations, hospitality, teaching and agricultural economics they have succeeded in creating the most groundbreaking fundraising and social event in country areas of New South Wales. The event is known as the Macquarie Matrons Gala Ball, which raises much-needed funds for their chosen charity and also takes the opportunity to showcase the diverse range of produce from the Macquarie Valley and surrounding regions.
The gala ball is a biennial event, and this year's function, the fourth, was held in an open-sided machinery shed in a district known as Gin Gin just north of Trangie. Few would recognise the machinery shed once the Macquarie Matrons had weaved their magic, transforming the backdrop for one of the biggest events on western New South Wales's social calendar. Twenty women make up the matrons, and they embrace the WOW factor. They readily admit to WOW having two interpretations: Women of the West and Wickedly Optimistic Women. They embrace the WOW factor as they plan the event each year. This year the 700 guests who attended the event came from throughout the Macquarie Valley and regional New South Wales, and from Sydney, Melbourne and Queensland.
As guests arrived they were treated to pre-dinner drinks and a roaming entree, served outside in the balmy atmosphere of a beautiful Macquarie Valley twilight, surrounded by magnificent crops being gently caressed by the breeze following the much-needed rain of the preceding weeks. The WOW factor was hard at work as soon as guests entered the shrouded machinery shed, with a group of musicians known as the Drum Cafe providing an interactive drumming session and 700 guests synchronizing with small bong bongs in a half- hour drumming session. It added an energy to the room that left the guests with an image they will not forget. The master of ceremonies for the evening was sports commentator Tim Webster. Guests were entertained by comedian and radio star Wendy Harmer, celebrity landscaper Jason Hodges, celebrity vet Chris Brown and keynote speaker Sam Bailey, who received a standing ovation from all bar one for his moving speech about his rehabilitation following a serious car accident.
The outstanding achievement of the event is that it raised a total of $193,000. The major beneficiary this year is CAN Assist, formerly known as the Cancer Patients Assistance Society of NSW [CPAS], which helps cancer patients, predominately from rural New South Wales, by providing accommodation, comfort, financial assistance and emotional support for patients and their carers. CAN Assist's premier facility is the Jean Colvin Hospital in the Sydney suburb of Darling Point, a 37-bed private hospital that specialises in providing accommodation and support for cancer patients from regional areas of New South Wales undergoing cancer treatment in Sydney. The funds raised will assist cancer patients financially with accommodation expenses at the Jean Colvin Hospital, as well as provide medication, drugs, prostheses and equipment for cancer patients. Since their inception, the Macquarie Matrons have raised approximately $538,000 in total for their area, which has contributed substantially to building a stronger, more caring and more sustainable rural community.
This group of fabulously talented women is chaired by Kate Munro, who is very capably supported by Jen Richardson, Kate Lees, Maree Glasson, Sarah Dugan, Simone Berryman, Belinda Crawford, Amber Dimond, Lucy Ferguson, Amanda Ferrari, Trudy Ferrari, Amanda Hamilton, Kerrie Kerin, Amanda McCutcheon, Sally Montgomery, Clitie Murdoch, Katie Sinclair, Cath Vincent and Kirsty Wettenhall. An event of this magnitude cannot succeed without the generous support of sponsoring organisations. This year's sponsors were the Macquarie Bank, Pages Event Equipment, Stix Catering, Namoi Cotton, Lazy River Estate Wines, Chesterfield Australia, AWB Ltd, Hotel Canobolas, Rabobank, Bayer Crop Science, Lloyd Walker Insurance Brokers, 93.5 Star FM, RM Williams, Sydney Auctions, Rhino Promotions, Rex Airlines, Pan Scott Media, Coates Hire, United Airlines, Disneyland Resort and Harvey World Travel. I take this opportunity to thank all 19474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005 the sponsors and congratulate WOW on a fabulous event and the raising of $193,000 for the benefit of the rural and regional people of New South Wales. WOW!
REMEMBRANCE DAY
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [6.45 p.m.]: This Friday, 11 November, is Remembrance Day. At the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918, World War I—a war that so dramatically changed Australia—came to an end. By the end of the war more than 60,000 Australians had been killed. Virtually a whole generation was wiped out in that war. Today many people search for the records of family members who fought in that historic war. The research centre at the Australian War Memorial plays an important role in many people's search to track their ancestry. The role of the research centre is to manage, develop and document our war efforts and provide public access to its records. It is the first point of call for many individuals wishing to obtain the service records of family members.
The research centre holds both originals and copies of service records, personal correspondence and material documenting all conflicts Australia has been involved in from the 1860's. On file are records created by an official agency or person, including war units, squadron records and the papers of the official historian. The official records section is the largest in the centre. There are said to be more than 3,000 metres of records: private records of the serviceman or woman, such as their personal diaries and letters to friends and relatives. There are more than 7,000 items in this collection—printed and special collections such as books, newspapers, maps, plans, charts, photographs, military forms, stamps, souvenirs and postcards. Photographs form a large part of this collection, with over 160,000 images of the various conflicts.
The online gallery provides people with access to the Australian War Memorial's database, which consists of biographical details of servicemen and women, along with rolls of honour and the nominal rolls of Australians who participated in Sudan in 1855, in the Boer War, in World Wars I and II, and in Vietnam. The reading room gives access to all the material and records in the War Memorial's collection. Staff are on hand to assist and people can listen to and watch records of the various conflicts. The film collection held in the research centre comprises both edited and unedited footage by official cameramen, private individuals and commercial organisations. Approximately 2,000 films are on file. The sound files include records of commentary and a large range of interviews with returned servicemen and women. The recordings feature radio commentary, news updates and personal stories of wartime in Australia.
If a person cannot physically visit the War Memorial in Canberra a request can be submitted to the research centre. The request must include the service man or woman's personal details to enable the search to begin. I first became interested in the research centre when I started researching my family history. I had two great uncles who served in the First World War and like many other people I wanted to find out more about their service. After contacting the research centre at the Australian War Memorial I obtained copies of the service records of both great uncles. I found it very interesting to read the records dating back to this time in our history. James Griffin was a private in the 19th battalion. He was killed in action in France on 14 November 1916. His records included his enlistment form, and personal letters, including a letter to my great grandfather confirming his death and notification of his burial in a British war cemetery.
My other great uncle, Thomas Sweeney, served as a private in the 6th Battalion. He served in the army from 1914 and was discharged as medically unfit in 1920. His records also included copies of his enlistment and discharge information, along with his medical records. Unlike my other great uncle, he survived the First World War and returned to Australia a seriously ill man. He died at the age of 33. Although some people returned, the toll of the war meant that many people such as Thomas Sweeney died at a young age. Whilst families rejoiced at having their loved ones home, many had to nurse their returned soldiers because of the nature of the injuries they sustained during the war. The research centre at the Australian War Memorial plays a vital role in ensuring our servicemen and women are recognised for their service to our country. The centre is staffed by both volunteers and paid staff who dedicate their time to education and preserving these valuable records for future generations Remembrance Day is about reflecting on the sacrifices made by our servicemen and women. The English poet and writer Laurence Binyon wrote a famous poem that has become part of our commemoration services in Australia since 1921:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old; Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning. We will remember them. Lest we forget. 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19475
NATIONAL PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION
The Hon. JON JENKINS [6.50 p.m.]: The other day during debate on the Jenolan Caves legislation it was argued that there was justification for both the National Parks Association [NPA] and the Nature Conservation Council [NCC] having dedicated seats on the advisory committee. This justification was made on the basis firstly that these were the peak environmental organisations and secondly that they represented some large section of the community. I thought I would do some formal checking of the validity of these claims. Firstly, I want to address the issue of why a particular group such as the NPA or the NCC has a dedicated representative on any advisory committee at all. In order to carry out their roles the advisory committees should have a balance of scientific and environmental expertise, local community and indigenous representation and also the peak user groups.
I agree wholeheartedly with this principle, and were the situation such that these people were appointed to these committees on that basis I would have no argument. Recently, however, several pieces of legislation have passed through this Parliament in which the function and purpose of the advisory committee has been corrupted by a fixed nomination position for both the NPA and the NCC. There is no requirement that the appointee for the NPA or the NCC have any qualifications that would enable them to contribute to the outcomes for the particular region concerned. They are not required to have any qualifications in science, environmental studies or equivalent experience, nor are they even required to have shown any service or contribution to any aspect related to their role whatsoever—they need merely to be a member of the NPA or the NCC.
If the nomination was qualified by some outcome goal such as environmental scientist or person with extensive experience in native vegetation or threatened species management et cetera, and was nominated by the NPA or the NCC, this would be at least superficial acknowledgement that these nominees had something to contribute to the process. As a general rule other positions on these advisory committees are specified by their expertise that they bring to the table. However, I believe there is a much more sinister reason for the NCC and NPA nominations. The reason is that it provides for centralised control by a small and unrepresentative group of people to decide what ideology is presented at these committee meetings.
The other night I likened the installation of the NCC and NPA representatives to the old Soviet days of the NKVD and KGB representatives on similar community management boards. The Greens castigated me for making this comparison, but I am not the first to make it. Patrick Moore, the founder of the world's largest and oldest environmental organisation, Greenpeace, likened the extremist environmental movement to "eco- terrorists and communists". The extremist conservation movement has specified and pre-allocated positions on advisory committees. Their function is purely to manage the ideology of the NPA and NCC positions. These positions are not allocated to some local representative but are controlled by a centralised and unrepresentative body. This is not only similar to the old Soviet days of the KGB, it is absolutely identical!
In the few minutes I have left to speak I would like to address the second issue on which I was completely unjustifiably attacked in this House. It was also intimated that I do not represent any large section of the community whereas the NPA and the NCC do. So I decided to do a bit of research on the so-called "representative" organisations. Thankfully, most public organisations that receive Government grants—and I note that the vast bulk of funding for both the NCC and the NPA comes from Government—have to publish financial audits. From these audits we have been able to ascertain approximate numbers of members these organisations represent. The NPA's acknowledged membership for the whole of New South Wales is about 4,000 people. That is pretty small. One Sydney four-wheel drive club equals or exceeds this by itself! The NCC's representative numbers are somewhat more difficult because of the complex scale of fees, however from its audited reports we are able to ascertain that they obtained about $12,000 in membership fees.
The reason there is a little uncertainty is because the ACF and Wilderness Society do not release figures for its New South Wales membership, so I assumed half of their Australian membership resides in New South Wales. Based upon commonly known numbers for the major environmental organisations such as the NPA, the Wilderness Society and Colong we were able to ascertain that the total NCC representation is somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. The NCC also represents the NPA, or so it says on its web site, so I have not included the NPA numbers twice, although they always have two seats on these advisory committees—a case of two seats for the price of one set of preferences. So this so-called vast representative organisation is not so vast at all. The total membership of the "peak conservation" movement is exceeded by the membership of just one of the four groups I represent. When one takes the Government's figures of one million fishermen the "extremist" conservation movement starts to look quite minor. 19476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
As a final note, I point to two very recent electoral results that the Government and Opposition should take note of. The first was in Queensland, where the Fishing Party, with a tiny band of helpers and almost no funds at all, decided the outcome of the Federal Senate in this country. The second and very interesting result is in New Zealand where the Outdoor Recreation Party now sits on the Government benches. Truth be told, I have only really been here for a little over 18 months and it may not possible for me to recover enough political support to pull all the recreational groups back together in time for the next election, but the Greens should take note of the famous words of another ideological fanatic: "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant".
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.54 p.m.]: Today I want to talk about one of the most shameful events that has ever occurred in Federal Parliament. I refer to the act of the Howard Government in guillotining the workplace relations debate. Debate on the industrial relations legislation in the House of Representatives was one of the most lengthy in recent times. The justification given by the Federal Government for guillotining the debate was that it was one of the longest debates in recent history and it had heard enough. More than 20 Labor members in Federal Parliament were on the speaking list at the time the Federal Government guillotined the debate.
The Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives, Tony Abbott, said that 77 members had spoken over a total period of 24 hours. No wonder so many members had spoken and so many were keen to participate. This is one of the most serious pieces of legislation affecting the working conditions, living conditions and rights of Australians that has been introduced in recent years. The Hon. Tony Abbott said in a very glib manner, "We have had a very, very extensive debate." In his opinion it may have been an extensive debate but the working people of Australia want these matters ventilated further.
This will go down as a black day for Australian democracy. It is an ominous stifling of democracy— something we will see more of now that the Howard Government has control of the numbers in the Senate. What was the Government afraid of debating? After all, it has spent $55 million of taxpayers funds advertising these changes. For many months we have been bombarded with advertisements on television and radio. As I have travelled around country New South Wales, every country newspaper has had at least two full-page ads from the Commonwealth Government extolling the virtues of its industrial relations changes. That is why I cannot understand why the Government was not prepared to allow the debate in the House of Representatives to run its full course. The Government was trying to drum up interest. It was happy to spend $55 million supporting its changes. Why not then allow them to be debated a little bit longer?
The Government does not want the legislation debated any longer because every day that this bill lay on the table of the House of Representatives and every day the debate continued, more ominous little changes were found, things that people were not advised of. The legislation runs to 700 pages, and the explanatory notes also run into hundreds of pages. Hidden in the fine detail of this legislation were things like those revealed this morning, which the Daily Telegraph rather unfortunately titled "Death of the sickie". This proposal in the Federal Government's industrial relations legislation, which will allow bosses to demand a medical certificate from employees who have one day of sick leave, is absolutely ludicrous.
I can only imagine that the people who put this in place have never been employers and have never had to manage a vast group of staff, and probably have access to any old doctor because they are prepared to pay through the nose. For the average working person, who has to get to a bulk-billing doctor, this will be insanity. People are better off, if they have a simple common cold, to spend the day at home resting than trying to get into a doctor's surgery. One should remember that in rural and regional New South Wales one cannot just drop in to a doctor's surgery, let alone find a doctor who bulk-bills. Someone who wants to see a doctor in Gunnedah can join the queue at about five o'clock in the morning to try to get one of the unallocated appointment times. If they do not manage that they have to wait until the next day.
It is being left up to employers to institute this measure. Good employers will treat their staff well. Employers who do not do the right thing and who, at the moment, have to be harassed by the union into doing the right thing by their staff and taken before the Industrial Relations Commission to ensure that they treat their staff well, will use this tool to great advantage. As the Minister for Health said in question time today, the impact this will have on waiting rooms in emergency departments will be dreadful. It will blow out waiting times in emergency departments. This is the sort of stuff the Federal Government wants to keep hidden. Shame on it! 10 November 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19477
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY AND HILLSONG ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.59 p.m.]: In recent times prominent indigenous Australians such as Noel Pearson have advocated for new approaches and solutions to overcome the unsatisfactorily high proportion of the indigenous community trapped in welfare dependency. This welfare dependency cycle creates a sense of despair, hopelessness, and lack of optimism for a brighter future. Despite the genuine goodwill of Commonwealth and State governments and growing resources being made available, existing methods to overcome this problem have not been as successful as one would have hoped.
There are those in our community, however, who are working with new initiatives and solutions to overcome this apparently insurmountable problem. A few weeks ago I attended a presentation in Redfern organised by Hillsong Enterprise Development, an initiative of Hillsong Church, entitled "Inspiring Australians—Profiling Indigenous Enterprise Development". The function showcased a program of Hillsong called Micro Enterprise Development. The objective of this initiative is "to see Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islanders and other marginalised groups empowered to develop and fulfil their potential through enterprises that contribute to the growth and development of their families and community".
Hillsong Enterprise Development pinpoints three major barriers to developing income-producing opportunities in marginalised communities in Australia. They are passive welfare, which sees the community as poor and disempowered; overregulation, which creates barriers to making small steps; and high transaction costs, which mean that formal sectors cannot afford to engage with people in disengaged communities. Basically, the program is designed to assist members of the indigenous community to locate business or income- producing activities, and to assist them by providing business development services, such as a business plan strategy, know-how in complying with government regulations, and assistance in organising cash-flow procedures.
The program provides unsecured loans of between $500 and $15,000 to get income-producing opportunities up and running. The great majority of those in the indigenous community with income-producing opportunities have no capacity to finance them through normal finance channels because of the absence of a regular income stream or insufficient assets. With a staff of some 130, Hillsong Enterprise Development, under the capable, energetic and dedicated leadership of its executive director, Leigh Coleman, is transforming the lives of many in the indigenous community who previously had no hope or opportunity to break free of welfare dependency.
Hillsong now has numerous projects operating particularly in Redfern, Cape York peninsula and northern New South Wales, as well as 3,000 projects in East Timor. As a result, many Aboriginal Australians are now operating their own businesses. For example, an indigenous person in Kempsey who 18 months ago was on the Work for the Dole Program is now operating his own lawn-mowing business. He was provided with a business plan and an unsecured loan to obtain equipment, and now employs some 13 people in his business. Hundreds of other examples could be provided of those now successfully operating their own businesses.
The concept of microeconomic development was originally put into operation in 1975 by Leigh Coleman and the 2005 Australian Entrepreneur of the Year, David Bussau, through Opportunity International, a not-for-profit body which employs 3,000 staff. Since 1975 more than $1.5 billion has been lent, with a 98 per cent repayment rate, to marginalised groups throughout the world, with over 500,000 loans in the Philippines alone. Hillsong Enterprise Development is the implementing partner in Australia for Opportunity International and has been successfully operating the program here for some six years. Hillsong is now working with the support and collaboration of the Australian Government and Indigenous Business Australia in advancing this program. The Hon. Kevin Andrews, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, has given his wholehearted support, as has Gerhardt Pearson, a leader from the Cape York Development Corporation.
I am greatly encouraged and inspired to see Hillsong Enterprise Development, as an initiative of Hillsong Church, putting its Christian values into practical operation by giving an effective helping hand to the Aboriginal community in breaking the welfare dependency cycle. I pay special tribute to Leigh Coleman, who, for 25 years, has given his heart and soul to microeconomic development programs, for the last six years specifically here in Australia. He is a man of great faith and selfless energy, who believes that, given the opportunity, the Aboriginal community and other marginalised groups trapped in a welfare dependency can be given practical help in forging new opportunities and a better life. For 25 years he has devoted his life to this concept. 2005 is the United Nations Year of Micro Credit and all people of goodwill will applaud these new practical initiatives of Hillsong to assist our more marginalised communities. 19478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 November 2005
DEATH OF MRS ANN PAYNE
The Hon. DON HARWIN [7.03 p.m.]: It is with great sadness that tonight I pass on my deepest sympathies to Senator Marise Payne, whose mother died late last week. I know a number of members of this House and the other place will tomorrow be travelling to Burrawang, a small village in the Southern Highlands, where a service will be held to celebrate the life of Mrs Ann Payne, a great lady who died in Bowral Hospital recently after a very long struggle with cancer. It has been a tremendously difficult time for Marise and her brother, William Payne, and daughter-in-law, Fiona Payne, who are also great friends of mine.
Mrs Payne is now at rest. The trauma that Marise has been through for several months as the full-time carer for her mother has come to an end but, of course, the sorrow will go on for a long time. Marise's father, Bill, died several years ago, so she is now without both parents. Tomorrow we will remember the good times with Ann and the good times that the Payne family shared together. I am sure that many members of the House would want to pass on their condolences to Senator Marise Payne on the death of her mother.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m. until Tuesday 15 November 2005 at 2.30 p.m.