1936
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 20 September 2006 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders, and thank them for their custodianship of this land.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 August 2006.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.00 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the legislation. However, for the benefit of advisers from the Cabinet Office and the Premier's Department, I indicate, as I have privately, that amendments will be moved in the other House. I will not bother this House with those amendments, as I am not into time wasting. This is important legislation in the year in which we celebrate the 150th year of our democracy, as in a sense this legislation enables our democracy to function. We cannot have responsible government without elections. We cannot have clear results without an administrative framework for elections.
The Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act provides that framework for conducting elections for this place, the other place and for the Parliament collectively. In that sense every member of Parliament has an interest in this legislation and an interest in the operations of the State Electoral Office. As a member of this place and as a former party official I have always had great respect for those who work in the State Electoral Office. I have had good relationships with successive commissioners and the commissioners' staff. I state for the record my appreciation of the efforts of the current Commissioner, Colin Barry.
The proposals before the House originate from a number of sources, such as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the report of the electoral distribution commissioners, and the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government. However, they also very much rely on Mr Barry's efforts to modernise the operation of the State Electoral Office and to regularise the way it functions. Those efforts are basically intended to ensure that the body whose purpose is to ensure fair elections in New South Wales is operating in a way that will not only suit the next election but elections thereafter.
In that sense this bill, which cleans up the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act, is welcomed by the Opposition and no doubt is welcomed by all honourable members. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made a large number of recommendations. I again state for the record my view that that is a worthwhile committee. One of the first things I did as a new member of this Parliament was to have my leader move for the establishment of such a committee. Thanks to the then Leader of the House, the Hon. Paul Whelan, the motion was defeated. But I am delighted that, after the 2003 election, the current Leader of the Government in the upper House, the Hon. John Della Bosca, saw fit to ensure that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was established. That is important because there is no difference between an election and any other public interest process.
At the conclusion of an election there should be an inquiry into the way in which the election was conducted. If problems are identified and improvements are deemed necessary there should be a report. It is partly against that background that this amending bill has been introduced. The electoral redistribution that took place last year resulted in a number of recommendations by the redistribution commissioners that have been largely incorporated into this legislation. I will briefly discuss the six matters that will be the subject of Opposition amendments in the upper House. First, I highlight that the Liberal Party and The Nationals will seek 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1937
to amend this legislation to ensure that people serving periods of incarceration in the State's gaols are denied the right to vote. That is consistent with Federal legislation and the practice in this State prior to the election of the current government. When an offender commits a crime of sufficient seriousness to warrant a custodial sentence, the punishment is meant to deprive the offender of entitlements as well as liberty. The Opposition simply does not believe that justification exists for prisoners to retain the right to vote and will move an amendment in the upper House accordingly.
Unusually, this legislation came to prominence through this city's tabloid newspaper in relation to provisions that will effect changes to permit voting to take place in licensed premises, notwithstanding the proviso that alcohol cannot be served in the part of the premises that will be used as a polling place. Some confusion arose in the defence of that provision by the Deputy Premier. Given the person who undertook the defence, that is not surprising. Initially the argument seemed to be that the provision was designed to address remote centres where polling places may not exist. The point made by the Opposition at the time, and the point I make again today, is that consultation with honourable members who represent the most remote and largest electorates in this House reveals that that has not been an issue of concern in relation to the conduct of elections in their memory.
I am not quite sure why that idea was put forward, but I am now told that it relates to halls that may be used for polling in country towns. Indeed, the Sydney Town Hall is licensed to hold functions at which alcohol may legitimately be served. In recent memory, no instance of any challenge to voting has occurred in such halls. If the amendment is directed to resolve that issue, the first argument is that there does not appear to be an issue. There has been no body of complaint suggesting any contention about the serving of alcohol in such premises. It may well be a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
If the Electoral Commissioner wants to pursue this area of improvement as he would see it, we will seek to move an amendment that ensures that licensed premises include halls such as CWA halls in country towns and Sydney Town Hall but explicitly exclude clubs and pubs. I think it is fairly obvious that if a local returning officer or, indeed, the Electoral Commissioner, were to determine to have voting in a club or pub in a country town, a suburban town or a down-town location, it would be a recipe for disaster. There is enough emotion around some of our schools, where most of the voting in the State occurs, without throwing alcohol into the mix.
The legislation seeks to ensure that the part of a licensed premise, which could be a pub or club, in which voting is occurring cannot serve alcohol. However, that simply means that if the voting occurs in the lounge bar people can go round to the public bar to get a drink. People will still congregate outside the club or pub, and the potential is still there for the usual heated emotions that occur on polling day to get out of hand and create other problems. I recognise that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour understands that it may also make more difficult to deal with the electoral offence of treating, which is readdressed in the legislation. How could one tell whether the beer or wine in a person's hand was bought for them by a candidate or a candidate supporter?
The third area that will be the subject of amendments relates to issues concerning the production of how-to-vote material. The current election legislation prevents an endorsed member of one party who is running for a lower House seat handing out how-to-vote material recommending a vote for another party in the Legislative Council, and vice versa. It is not intended that that will be changed by this legislation. However, it gave rise to an anomaly at the last election.
We have represented in this Parliament the Coalition, the Liberal Party and The Nationals, who run a joint Legislative Council ticket that is accepted as a joint ticket by the State Electoral Office. At the last election, on the advice of the then Electoral Commissioner, we were refused permission for the Liberal Party and The Nationals—who, of course, do not run in the same seats—to issue statewide how-to-vote material covering all 93 seats in which both parties were running. I note that we now have another two entities in relation to Legislative Council elections, the Labor Party and Country Labor. We are not quite sure how the Labor Party has managed to circumvent the rule.
The purpose of our amendment will be that any parties, irrespective of who they are, who run joint tickets in the State Electoral Office, and which are accepted by the State Electoral Office as joint tickets, shall have the right for their lower House candidates to issue statewide how-to-vote material encompassing all seats in which either of the two parties are running and which will enable them to provide how-to-vote information across those seats. That would address the issue for the Liberal Party and The Nationals, it would address the 1938 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
issue of a Country Labor-Labor Party ticket, it would address the issue if one day Family First and Call to Australia formed a coalition together, it might even address the issue if the Greens were to one day join with the Labor Party and form a coalition. The principle is that if the State Electoral Office deems it suitable for two or more parties to run joint tickets for the Legislative Council, each of those parties for the lower House should be able to put out statewide how-to-vote information across all the seats in which they are contesting.
The fourth matter that will be the subject of amendments relates to polling day activities and what the parties describe as the dressing of booths. As a person who on State election days spends his time travelling around booths but on Federal election days finds himself usually opposite Mark Arbib at Sydney Town Hall, running the Liberal Party's polling place there, in recent elections I have noted just how early Young Labor starts to dress the Sydney Town Hall polling booth. Indeed, I think Sydney City Council's rules provide that booth dressing is to take place after 6.00 p.m. the day before.
At the last election in which I was involved, Young Labor was there at 4.00 p.m. on the day before polling day, in other words, 16 hours before voting commenced. It now involves all parties hiring security guards to ensure that their dressing of Sydney Town Hall is not ripped down by marauding gangs of young politicos from either side. It is ridiculous. In marginal seats, the seats that determine the outcome of any election, one sees the same thing occurring. At 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., sometimes even earlier, one sees people traipsing around polling places seeking to get the best position for their signs, causing disturbance to neighbours, and even worse at times, and often police have been required to attend. An amendment is to be moved to limit booth dressing to after 6.00 a.m. on the day of an election, which I believe will benefit the community. It is a worthwhile proposal. It simply means that people would have a fair go at dressing a booth two hours before voting commences, without inconveniencing surrounding neighbours as activities go on in the early hours.
The fifth issue that will be the subject of amendments is, I suspect, a vexed issue for every member of the lower House. It relates to the definition of "polling place", which the legislation attempts to clarify. I can think of a school in the electorate of the member for Hawkesbury—a terrific local member who looks after his schools extremely well, and will do so into the next Parliament—in which the hall is located not on the outside of the school property facing the street but in the middle of the property. As we all know, usually the voting place is the local school hall. Obviously there are usually other doors on school halls, but normally the front door of the hall is opened. People go in, they have their names ruled off, they vote, and they leave via the same door. Under this legislation, it is intended that the local school hall will remain the polling place. The electoral rules require that people who hand out how-to-vote material on election day shall be no closer than six metres from the entry to the polling place. That is an appropriate regulation that certainly the Liberal party and The Nationals support, and no doubt other organised political parties also support.
However, a problem arises when local returning officers do not deem the hall in which voting is occurring to be the polling place but deem the entire school to be the polling place, and as a result force party workers out to the fences surrounding the school. There is a practical issue here for parties. If the polling place is deemed to be the school hall, and the school hall has one entrance, clearly it takes fewer people to man that polling place and provide how-to-vote material to the public. Of course, it is the right of both political parties and residents to have how-to-vote material. A large number of workers would be required to man a polling booth if, for example, they were condemned to stand around the outskirts of a school that may or may not be fenced, that may or may not have four formal entrances and two informal entrances. Indeed, a far more considerable effort would be required to man the polling booth.
In 1995 I received written advice from the then State Electoral Commissioner that the polling place was the local school hall, and that the rule as to how far away parties had to stand related to the location of the entrance to that school hall. As State Director of the Liberal Party I provided a copy of that written advice to every polling place across New South Wales. However, I have to say that it was not worth the paper it was written on, because at polling place after polling place the local returning officer of the school said, "No, we have always stood outside the fence. You will now stand outside the fence." I say to Commissioner Barry that we not only need clarity in the electoral Act about what is a polling place, we also need to ensure that his returning officers in local districts understand the Act and understand that if the Act deems that a school hall, as opposed to the school grounds, are the polling place that party workers have to stand only six metres away from the door of that school hall.
The Opposition will seek an amendment in the upper House to make that definition much clearer and ensure that there is no argy-bargy and confusion with the mass of people at polling places across the State in 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1939
past elections. I leave to last the Opposition's sixth proposed amendment and I will address one issue that is not addressed by the bill, an issue I urge the Electoral Commissioner to take seriously because of its impact on remote and rural voters. The sixth issue relates to the provision in the bill to remove the limitation on the size of electoral material during the campaign, after the writs are issued. Currently, as honourable members know, that size is roughly equivalent to one poster or corflute, with the exception of one's campaign office window which can be larger and have one's name, the seat for which one is standing, and one's party affiliation.
The bill would do away with the size constraint that has been used in at least the last four elections. It has served the State well and seen a Liberal government and a Labor government elected, so clearly it does not favour one side or the other. The concept of Federal-style plastic wrap, Northern Territory or Queensland oversized corflutes at polling places and the advent of billboard advertising during the period after the writs are issued, fill me with horror, and I am sure will fill the community with horror. One only has to drive through some marginal seats on election day to see that, even with existing restrictions, they are dressed well beyond the nines; there is no shortage of corflutes, no shortage of paper, and no shortage of signs indicating who is running for those seats.
Mr Speaker, you will have driven past polling places after 6.00 p.m. and seen an enormous amount of trash and rubbish lying around. I wish I could say that all political parties were kind to the environment at the end of polling day, but that is not the case. We see festooned across this city for months after an election, posters and the like still affixed to street signs. Only last week I saw one of Tanya Plibersek's original posters in Woolloomooloo.
This proposal is an unnecessary change to the legislation. The Liberals and The Nationals will not support any changes in the size of posters or electoral advertising for the period after the writs are issued. We do not see the need for it; it does not serve any purpose and we will move amendments along those lines. The Opposition will seek co-operation for this and we have already had discussions with the Greens in relation to a number of amendments. We will seek the support of crossbenchers to our proposed amendments because, at the end of the day, whilst everyone in both Chambers should want electoral legislation to operate effectively, that legislation should be clear, it should be impartial and it should seek at all times to put the public interest first.
Each area of amendment that I have highlighted fits that ideal. I understand there is at least some contention in relation to the right of prisoners to vote, but I again say that if someone has received a custodial sentence that is no light matter, and penalties ought to be involved. Another issue I raise probably has most resonance in a Murray-Darling electorate such as Barwon, or in parts of the Bega electorate. Because of the timing of the issue of the writs and because of the requirement in relation to the nomination of candidates, it is possible that in remote and rural parts of New South Wales, where there is only one mail service a week, for people to be denied the right to vote simply because by the time they receive their postal vote ballot papers after the writs are issued, and after the nominations have closed, they cannot fill out their postal vote ballot papers and return them in time—because of the shortage of mail services.
Discussions have been held about bringing forward the time for the issue of writs. It is unclear why the Government will not consider the interests of those who live in remote and rural communities in relation to that issue. As someone who has looked at this issue long and hard over a number of years, I do not understand the Government's reticence to act on this issue. I am concerned that the State Electoral Office, for which I have a high regard, does not consider this as important. Yet, I would have thought that everyone in this place should stand for the right of every voter who wants to vote to be able to do so. However, under current arrangements, people in remote and rural areas are denied that right because the timing of the issuing of the writs, the timing of the nomination of candidates, does not allow them to receive and return their postal vote ballot papers and have them included in the count for a particular seat.
This is not just about people's right to vote; it is also about the outcome of an election. We have all been involved in far too many elections that have been determined at a seat level by a handful of votes—when a few people in a community had their postal votes ruled out because they were not received in time and that could have made a difference to the outcome of an election. I seek a response either in this place or from the Hon. John Della Bosca in the other place who, I presume, will have carriage of this bill in the upper House, as to why the issue of writs has not been addressed in the bill.
There is no need for me to go on. I have raised the six areas in which the Opposition is flagging amendments to be moved in the other place. I urge the crossbenchers in the other place to understand the importance of those amendments to the operation of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. I again 1940 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
commend the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I hope that after every election we see reporting and amendments to the Act, because it, like other good Acts, should be evolutionary. As times and conditions change so should the provisions relating to elections, providing, of course, that at all times we are seeking to be fair and impartial and putting the interests of the public first.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.27 a.m.]: I support my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the concerns that he has raised in regard to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill. In doing so, I remind the House that on at least two occasions I have introduced electoral legislation in this House in an effort to try to ensure that a singular right that everyone has in Australia, especially New South Wales—their vote—is not negated by false enrolments. One proposal I would have liked included in the bill is the provision of a voter enrolment card. In the past the Labor Party has waxed long and lyrical about the opportunity for people to be disadvantaged by having a voter enrolment card. It is disgraceful that people can enrol to vote wherever they like without any real crosschecks and balances. A voter enrolment card is something that the Electoral Commissioner should take into account; he should consider recommending to Parliament that one's right to enrol have some safeguards. At the moment you can still fill out an enrolment card, have a mate witness it—someone who is on the roll—and become a voter in the State of New South Wales.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Mike Kaiser proved that, did he not?
Mr ANDREW FRASER: Mike Kaiser did prove that.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Where does he work?
Mr ANDREW FRASER: He is with the Premier's office. And we saw that happen in Queensland. I spoke to my colleagues at the time, and I have said before in this place and I will say it again today, it is endemic within the Labor Party. At one stage the honourable member for Lachlan expressed the view that we lost at least one seat in Western Sydney by a couple of busloads of votes. That concerns me because I want the confidence of knowing that I can go and vote and that a false enrolment is not going to negate my vote. Government these days comes down to the wire and I think we need to look at that issue.
In relation to the bill, I echo the concerns of my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition regarding licensed premises. My first-ever experience in working on a booth was way back in the early 1970s during a Federal election in Mayfield. I was threatened with a knife by a union official because I objected to the fact that the union official was bringing people to the polling place by way of a minibus and then going in and voting on their behalf. I was quite within my rights to object to that. The polling officials suggested to this person that he should not be doing that, and his answer to that was to personally threaten me.
Bribery for votes—as I interjected during the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— could happen on normal licensed premises, a pub or a club, and it opens up the possibility of a vino for a vote: "Come down and see us. We'll buy you a beer. We'll put a keg on out the back. We'll run a bar tab. You come in and vote for our preferred candidate and we'll give you a free grog." If the problem that has arisen, which has been identified by the Electoral Commissioner, concerns the Country Women's Association or other premises that may be licensed for restaurant purposes or other purposes, such as the Town Hall, by all means include those. But let us very clearly exclude clubs and pubs because I believe the opportunity for electoral fraud in those areas by someone buying beers for votes or vinos for votes is very, very real.
I also endorse the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with regard to the identification of polling places. In country areas, quite often the polling place is the local school, in either the school hall or a classroom, and the school grounds are fairly large, especially in regional areas. There may be five or six gates and often arguments develop between volunteers from various parties as to who gets the best hand-out site and so on. At the end of the day it becomes farcical.
We should define the polling place as the hall where the votes are actually cast, have the political parties officials set up no closer than six metres from that hall, and make it a little more orderly, rather than having, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, a lot of decoration all around the school that normally stays there for some time after the election. I too see Tanya Plibersek's poster at Woolloomooloo every time I walk down there: it is still up there. All political parties are guilty of the same thing: if you have got a poster in a good spot and no-one has asked you to pull it down, leave it there; it is a bit of ongoing advertising. But we need to define the polling area and that will make it easier on all of us. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1941
Billboards will advantage those with the biggest budgets. The cost of billboard advertising in marginal seats in Sydney must be huge and I think there would be an overkill of billboard advertising for the bigger- budget parties. Even now the 1.2 square metre limit on the size of advertising signage can be stretched. We have seen it, and I have done it myself, putting eight or 10 posters together on a board on the back of a trailer or wherever. So you can get around the restrictions, but to have those billboards advantages those who have the biggest wallets, and, as far as I am concerned, that is an unfair advantage to some parties. In the past I have suggested, and I know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has, that maybe we need to very seriously look at the way campaigns are funded and see whether there is an opportunity for public funding across-the-board. I would like the Electoral Commission to have a look at that.
Speaking as a member of The Nationals, there are huge problems, even in coastal areas, in small electorates with regard to accessibility to postal services. Some of the smaller coastal electorates have no postman to deliver mail; people have to go and pick up their mail. The opportunity to send an application for a postal vote, receive the form back, and then register a vote is somewhat limited. I would like to hear what the honourable member for Murray-Darling has to say about this because, due to the size of his seat, it has extremely isolated areas where postal services are maybe once a week or once a fortnight.
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Also in Burrinjuck.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The honourable member for Burrinjuck also has a very large electorate. Mine is a pocket-handkerchief size by comparison. I would love an electorate the size of Bligh, where you could probably walk around it in a morning.
Ms Clover Moore: A bit longer than that.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: A bit longer, but it takes me a full day to drive around mine, and I have got one of the smallest country electorates. Smaller electorates have all the advantages: people can just walk to where they have to vote. A lot of elderly people find it physically impossible to get to a polling booth for even the pre-poll and they rely on the postal vote system. I too look forward to the Government agreeing to a better system of postal voting to ensure the democratic right of people in isolated areas of New South Wales and their knowing that their vote means something.
I commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his contribution this morning and I ask the Government to seriously consider the amendments we foreshadow. They are purely designed to make the legislation better and I look forward to the time post-24 March next year when we gain government and introduce some of the reforms I have previously enunciated in this House with regard to the security of enrolment and the opportunity to make sure that a person's vote is not negated by someone who is intent on enrolling or voting incorrectly.
There are falsified enrolments. We all know that. Bob Bottom, a great campaigner against corruption in this State and now in Queensland, exposed rorts in Queensland, which involved Mr Kaiser and others. At the end of the day, we had Mr Kaiser down here, and that makes me cringe a little bit when I think about the laxity within the enrolment provisions of the Electoral Act in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PAUL CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [10.38 p.m.]: I was not going to contribute to this debate until I heard the honourable member for Coffs Harbour carry on. The great thing about The Nationals is that they always indulge in a "we was robbed" campaign. During the course of what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was happy to call a contribution, he referred to a comment that the honourable member for Lachlan may or may not have made. The Nationals have tremendous form in this area. I am proud to say that I was involved in Mick Clough's successful campaign for the seat of Bathurst in l991. As members would be aware, Mick Clough was first elected to this place in 1976 as the member for Blue Mountains.
At the redistribution prior to the 1981 election—which was not dissimilar to what is occurring now with the Federal seats of Macquarie and Calare—Lithgow was included in the seat of Bathurst. Mick had to choose between the seat of Blue Mountains and Bathurst, and he decided to contest Bathurst. He had as an opponent Clive Osborne from The Nationals, a rare opponent because he was a pleasant fellow, a tough campaigner and extremely well liked in the Bathurst area. That tough campaign literally came down to 43 votes. Prior to the closure of postal votes, radio stations reported that for some unknown reason a whole bag of votes had mysteriously appeared in Orange and would be arriving in Bathurst the next day. Mick Clough immediately went on radio and said that if any votes from Orange mysteriously appeared the next day someone would be 1942 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
going to gaol. Surprise, surprise, that great big bag of votes about which members of The Nationals were crowing never materialised! It never turned up!
If there is any evidence of electoral fraud it should be brought into the open, given to the police or to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], and investigated. This debate is reminiscent of what Government members have been subjected to for the best part of a decade. On Thursday mornings, which are private members' days, Opposition members usually make allegations of electoral fraud. If the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and his colleagues have any clear evidence of fraud or have heard rumours or speculation about anything they want investigated, they should give it to the police or to ICAC; they should not come into this Chamber and continually say, "We was robbed."
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [10.42 a.m.]: Electoral integrity is essential to a healthy democracy, and changes to the way elections are run should be treated with caution. Any reduction in the integrity of the electoral process risks corruption and threatens public trust in the political process. The Government would have us believe that the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill will modernise the electoral process and that its many amendments are mostly technical and administrative changes. Yet several of these amendments may have a significant impact on the New South Wales electoral system.
I strongly oppose the removal of the current limitation on the size of election campaign posters. While election posters are a traditional feature of Australia's democratic electoral process, many people see them as an intrusion on the public landscape. Whenever an election is called it is always the subject of media and community comment. People are opposed to adding visual pollution to the public domain. Since 1999 I have sought action from the State Government to address this issue and to improve the unrealistic and largely unenforceable legislation governing the display of election candidates' posters. I have proposed that they be limited in size and restricted to being put up no more than 28 days before an election and taken down within 14 days after the election. If that occurred it would allay many of the concerns felt by the community about what it considers to be visual pollution of the environment.
Instead the government proposes to remove the current limit of 8,000 square centimetres and allow posters of any size. That could result in intrusively large billboard size posters that already feature in elections in other States. Only parties and candidates with large campaign budgets would benefit from this change, giving them yet another advantage over smaller parties and independent candidates with limited funds. The limit to poster sizes should be maintained to reduce the impact on the public domain.
I am concerned that the bill significantly broadens the definition of electoral material that must be registered for distribution on polling day. The existing registration requirements are onerous enough, particularly for candidates without organised party structures, and must be met during a period when there is a high demand on candidates' time. Similar provisions do not exist for Commonwealth elections. New section 151F (3) defines "electoral material" extremely broadly to include "an express or implicit reference to or comment on the election or referendum; election issues; past and present New South Wales governments and oppositions, possibly even dating back to the beginnings of responsible government in New South Wales in 1856; past and present Commonwealth governments and oppositions—stretching back to Federation; past and present governments of other States and Territories; current and former members of Parliament in all States and the Commonwealth; and political parties and candidates".
This broader definition means that it will be an offence to distribute virtually any political material if it is not registered. This will apply not only to areas in the vicinity of polling places but also to any public place. Although these provisions may apply only for one day they risk bordering on political censorship. The Minister must explain why such a broad and draconian definition is necessary. I am also concerned that the bill makes registered electoral material available for inspection only on polling day, and only to residents enrolled to vote in that electorate. The registered how-to-vote cards should be available for inspection at the State Electoral Office as soon as practicable after they have been registered. Similarly, registered how-to-vote cards for the election in each electorate should be available for inspection at the returning office for that electorate as soon as practicable after they have been registered. Similar provisions exist in Victoria's Electoral Act.
This would mean that the public would be able to inspect how-to-vote cards at least seven days before an election, increasing the transparency of the electoral process. This would enable voters to make informed choices, particularly if they are casting a pre-poll or postal vote. It would also enable voters to be aware of any preference arrangements between candidates and determine the extent to which preference recommendations reflect that party's or candidate's values, philosophy or policies. Voters would then be able to take those factors into account when casting their vote. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1943
Leaving the release of this material to polling day serves no useful purpose. Inspection should not be restricted to people on the electoral roll for the electorate concerned. Anyone, including media representatives, should be able to inspect this material. The media has a vital role to play in informing the public about all aspects of an election, including how-to-vote cards and preference arrangements. If we are to continue with the registration process, parties and candidates should be restricted to registering one how-to-vote card for the election they are contesting. This would mean each group seeking election to the Legislative Council would be limited to registering one how-to-vote card and each candidate for the Legislative Assembly would be limited to registering one how-to-vote card. The card may recommend alternative preference allocations, with all alternatives being clearly displayed.
Without this provision, parties and candidates are free to register more than one how-to-vote card and then choose to distribute only one of those how-to-vote cards on polling day. This undermines the intention of making registered how-to-vote cards available for public scrutiny. The public should be confident that the how- to-vote card, which is available for inspection, is the how-to-vote card that will be distributed to voters on polling day. Despite the requirement to register how-to-vote cards, the bill fails to provide a right of appeal should the Electoral Commissioner refuse to register material. The bill should include provisions similar to those in Victoria that allow candidates and parties to request a tribunal review of the commission's decision.
The bill will make it an offence to canvass for votes within six metres of the entrance of a polling place. New section 151H (4) makes it clear that canvassing includes distributing electoral material, that is, handing out how-to-vote cards. It should be an offence to obstruct, intimidate or harass voters who are entering or leaving polling places. Section 113 of the Act makes it an offence to obstruct the access or approaches to a polling place. It would have been better for the Government to strengthen this section, rather than introduce a new offence.
Handing out how-to-vote cards is a traditional and integral part of the New South Wales electoral system. The new six-metre rule will make it difficult, if not impossible, to distribute how-to-vote cards outside many polling places. For example, many polling places in my electorate have entrances right on narrow footpaths. I am sure that other honourable members would be aware of similar polling places in their electorates. This new offence provides for a maximum penalty of five penalty units, which means campaign volunteers could find themselves facing fines of up to $550 for handing out how-to-vote cards. Will the Government make a commitment to enforce this law to its fullest extent? Will it seriously risk prosecuting many loyal members of its own party, or will it turn a blind eye to breaches of this law in the same way that breaches of the law relating to election posters are regularly ignored?
The new provisions are vague regarding the entrance to polling places where a building used as a polling place is located in enclosed grounds. Section 151J gives the returning officer the discretion to decide where the entrance will be. If, for example, a school is used as a polling place, the officer could decide that the entrance is the entrance to the school building or the school gate. It would be far simpler and less ambiguous if section 151J read:
For the purposes of sections 151D, 151H and 151I, the entrance of a building used as a polling place shall be the entrance of the polling place.
Finally, I note the introduction of local council contributions to maintain the roll. I would like to point out that I think it is a pity that there is not more cost-sharing, particularly with the State Government paying its share of functions transferred to local government.
Mr JEFF HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [10.50 a.m.]: My contribution today will only be brief. I would like to read quickly from the overview of the bill and then make a few comments on some of the proposed changes. The object of the bill is to amend the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912, the principal Act, in connection with electoral administration, redistribution of electoral districts, the conduct of State elections, and associated matters, in particular to make the following amendments, and I shall quote the amendments that are of particular interest to me and members of the public. With respect to electoral administration, the bill proposes to replace the State Electoral Office with a New South Wales Electoral Commission, which is to be administered by the Electoral Commissioner.
The second objective deals with electoral redistributions and, having been through the electoral redistribution process some two years ago, I understand some of the changes that have been made. It seeks to make adjustments to the procedures to be followed by the Electoral Districts Commissioners when preparing a redistribution of electoral districts and to provide for the boundaries of electoral districts to be described by 1944 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
reference to maps in digital or electronic form. I also note that a number of people have moved overseas for a period of time but still want to exercise their democratic right to vote in elections, so the objective that states "with respect to overseas electors, to extend to 6 years the period for which electors may remain enrolled and vote after leaving Australia, with similar arrangements for spouses and children" will be of particular interest to them.
With respect to electoral rolls, the object is to provide that an elector's date of birth will be included on the roll and to provide that particulars of an elector's occupation will form part of enrolment information but will not appear on the copies of the rolls used at elections. That is a change for the better. I also note that another object requires electors seeking to vote to state their date of birth for the purposes of checking entitlement to vote. Over the 15-odd years that I have been in Parliament and with the many elections I was involved in previously when my father was a member of this place many people have expressed concern about how easy it is to vote. Including the date of birth of the elector and having polling officials asking electors to state their date of birth ensures that there can be some crosschecking and reference.
I note a requirement for ballot papers to be initialled on the front instead of being signed or initialled on the back to ensure they are valid. That was a matter of concern to my constituents and probably others across the State. A number of other changes are proposed in the legislation, but I shall not take up the time of the House with them, except to say that I am pleased that those changes are being made in this legislation.
Mr ALEX McTAGGART (Pittwater) [10.54 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill. First, I compliment the honourable member for Bligh on her diligent and excellent contribution. As usual she has gone to the heart of the matter. I support a couple of the foreshadowed amendments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I shall speak to them now. He referred to licensed premises and used the example of Sydney Town Hall. In my electorate surf clubs are used as polling booths and although they have occasional licences, there is a move within government to allow surf clubs to be licensed premises. We need clarification of the definition of licensed premises. I am not suggesting that the surf clubs will be licensed, but we need clear definition of the use to which the buildings are put.
I support the amendment with respect to the 6.00 a.m. start-up. Although election day is an important day for members of Parliament, it is usually the pits for local residents because of the inconvenience and visual pollution. Residents should be given due consideration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also sought a definition of "polling place". Schools are regularly used as polling places. For example, Avalon Public School has six gates spread over three streets in the centre of the village. I do not have a problem manning the booth because I have strong community support, but it must be a problem for the parties who need six people at each booth with half a dozen booths at 90 electorates. That is a considerable strain.
I am concerned about the visual pollution surrounding entrances to polling booths and inconvenience to the community. I would like to see school halls defined as polling areas and people set up inside the school grounds, outside entrances to the halls. It removes the visual pollution and it also removes some of the aggravation of people jockeying for positions. This will make the process more efficient. Finally, the size of posters was mentioned. At present the posters are allowed to be 600 millimetres by 900 millimetres, and I believe they are big enough. We do not need any more visual pollution; nor do we need American-style politics with posters of local members scaring the kids. Pittwater has not been a political electorate over the last 70-odd years, but in the recent by-election people were shaking posters on corners and jumping out in the streets holding up posters. That is not necessary. We should remove the razzmatazz, large posters, and in-your-face politics and return to the old Aussie-style days of campaigning.
Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.58 a.m.], in reply: I would like to think that all members of this House are committed to democracy. We are passionate about it, but I would also like to think that we generally accept that the people get it right. Also, I think people would expect us to reform electoral laws in the spirit of co-operation with the Electoral Commissioner. That is part of the reason why the Government put the bill out for public consultation for four weeks. Often we are criticised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for not doing enough. On this occasion we put this important legislation out for four weeks to ensure that the views of all political parties and all political interests were taken into account and to ensure that the bill was as satisfactory as it could be to everyone. Therefore, it was disappointing that the Liberal Party, in a letter to the Cabinet Office, calling for submissions on the bill, said:
The NSW Liberal Party does have concerns about some of the amendments but we believe these are best aired during parliamentary debate on the proposals. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1945
As a result we will be raising our concerns with the Parliamentary Liberal Party so they can be addressed when the legislation is introduced into Parliament.
We could have worked with the Liberal Party for four weeks to overcome particular issues regarding the bill but the Liberals took an arrogant approach and foreshadowed that the Coalition will move amendments in the upper House, which we will deal with in due course. It is important for people to know that the Government approached the drafting of the bill in a spirit of co-operation but that the Liberal Party refused to participate in a bi-partisan manner.
Turning to some issues raised during the debate, I was amused by the re-emergence of the old red herring about preventing prisoners from voting. A private member's bill to that effect was resoundingly defeated a couple of years ago in this place. The honourable member for Liverpool, who is about to take the chair, was one of many members who spoke against that bill. It is not surprising that this red herring keeps resurfacing. This is the Electoral Commissioner's bill. Many of the amendments are of a very technical nature and are the result of his experience and that of the Electoral Commission in general and aim to improve the operation of this important legislation.
The amendment to permit licensed premises to be used as polling places was requested by the Electoral Commissioner. If the existing provisions are not changed the Electoral Commissioner will be unnecessarily limited in the premises that he is able to use as polling places. This is a particular problem in rural areas. For example, many town halls and community facilities have some type of liquor licence, primarily for functions. The new provisions are almost identical to those in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and those liquor provisions have not caused democracy to fall apart. The new provisions will be subject to a number of stringent controls. The premises in question must not be used to serve alcohol during polling hours. Further, voting cannot take place in any part of the premises where there is direct access to the area in which alcohol is kept or served. Finally, it is a matter for the Electoral Commissioner to decide which premises will be used as polling places. It will not be a case of publicans lobbying for their premises to be used as a polling place; that decision will be made by the Electoral Commissioner.
As to the size of election posters, it is consistent with the principle of free speech to allow posters of all sizes to be used during the election period. In any event, the Electoral Commissioner has advised that the existing provisions are difficult to enforce. We would prefer to have people on booths supervising the voting process rather than running around with tape measures, arguing about a millimetre here and a centimetre there. It should also be noted that the Commonwealth does not impose size limits on posters and this does not appear to cause visual pollution or have a significant environmental impact. There has been a massive billboard of Jim Snow beside the highway to Canberra for many years and democracy has not declined as a consequence.
Rural and regional postal voting is an important issue about which we would have liked to consult the Coalition. However, the Liberal Party and The Nationals did not put in a submission so we will work with them in the upper House to resolve this matter. As to accessing how-to-vote material, under the current Act there is no clear right of public access to registered how-to-vote material. This bill improves the transparency of the registration process. It clearly establishes that an elector has the right to access how-to-vote material registered for his or her electorate at the returning officer's office on polling day. Scrutineers will also be able to access information. This reform implements the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that all registered material should be available on election day. I note the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Bligh about single how-to-vote cards. To claim to be in favour of free speech and then to propose such censorship is surprising. I imagine that in many rural electorates with diverse communities—such as Murray-Darling, which covers more than 40 per cent of the State—there might be good reasons for changing a photograph on election material in order to recognise a local community.
The honourable member for Bligh also expressed concern about the erection of election posters. She said that posters should be erected no earlier than 28 days prior to the election and should be taken down within 14 days after the election. The Government does not believe it is necessary to limit the period during which posters can be erected. This generally happens in the lead-up to an election, which is a fairly limited period in any event. If posters are erected ridiculously early people do not pay them much attention anyway. It should be a matter for the property owner to enforce the removal of posters. I am sure that most members in this place do as I do and ensure that the polling booth is clean and check the day after polling day to ensure that their material and that of their opposition is removed. I believe all electoral candidates should do that. This bill aims to streamline the conduct of elections in New South Wales and to improve the functioning of our State electoral authority. I commend the bill to the House. 1946 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (APPREHENDED VIOLENCE) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 6 September 2006.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.05 a.m.]: The Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill follows a report from the Law Reform Commission into part 15A of the Crimes Act 1900, and substantially enacts many of its recommendations. When I was a solicitor in practice many years ago and there was no such thing as apprehended violence orders in New South Wales the police did not attend domestic violence call-outs. Instead they referred the complainants to a chamber magistrate or a solicitor to initiate some form of court process that was difficult to achieve.
We have come a long way since then and apprehended violence orders—whose application began on a small scale when they were introduced by the Wran Government—have become a huge part of the legal system, especially in the Local Courts. Indeed, I have been told that two out of every five days in the Local Courts are devoted to the consideration of apprehended violence order applications. They are an enormous test for magistrates and place a great strain on the court system and upon police, who are called out, more often at night than during the day, to attend domestic violence incidents. In many cases these are most unpleasant experiences for police, as the people involved are usually frightened, violent or threatening violence. Domestic violence is a cancer in society that is a result of the massive breakdown in family structures that so plagues the modern world.
It is important to address the issue of domestic violence and apprehended violence, domestic or non- domestic. I have been told—I have not been able to check the figure but I have no reason to doubt it—that 11 people have died in New South Wales so far this year as a result of domestic violence. That is an extraordinary and tragic figure, and one dearly wishes that it were not so. The Parliamentary Secretary, the honourable member for Tweed, in introducing the bill quoted a number of organisations that the Government had consulted about the bill and a number of programs that the Government sponsored. However, he did not mention the women's resource centres—I am not sure whether that was an oversight or they were not consulted—that play a major role in advocating on behalf of many women who are the victims of domestic violence. If those centres have not been consulted it is a serious oversight. The Parliamentary Secretary also failed to mention—once again, I do not know whether it was an oversight—various other organisations, such as the lone fathers groups and fathers without custody groups who represent many men who are affected by these orders.
I do not expect the Attorney General will dispute that unfortunately a number of people use apprehended violence orders as a tactic in unresolved family law proceedings and I do not know how we can combat that. I do not have figures but anecdotally I hear that many people involved in protracted or acrimonious family law proceedings take out an apprehended violence order which they then present to the Family Court as evidence to support their own claims or as a bargaining tactic to force the other side to negotiate with them and concede points that they wish to win. That abuse of the system is difficult to correct and I am sure it was taken into account by the Law Reform Commission.
I have received a number of concerns from males about the apprehended violence order system, which I do not necessarily endorse, but they should be placed before a responsible Parliament to be considered in a second reading debate. Many men are concerned that the apprehended violence order system is being abused and that, as a result, many children of separated parents end up in sole parental custody when they would be far better and more fairly served under the custody of both parents. As a consequence, the 1993-94 sole-parent pensions amounted to $5.4 billion when the unemployment benefit was only $5 billion. The Federal Government has a very real interest because it is paying out more in sole-parent pensions than in unemployment benefits.
The inquiry received submissions from father groups about the apparent ease with which an apprehended violence order can be obtained through the system, and that subsequently, if an apprehended violence order is in place prior to making an application to the Family Court, it is required to be included in the application, a point to which I referred earlier. There is a serious gap in the ability of the Family Court to deal 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1947
with child abuse and domestic violence with two systems running parallel. Even though it is always expected that courts co-operate with one another, and I am sure every attempt is made to do so, the fact that two systems are in place in relation to family law causes an enormous amount of complication and expense in some cases. It has been put to me:
This lack of substantive fairness erodes the community confidence in the system as it is seen not as the tool it is intended to be but rather as a mechanism of conflict resulting in a DVO system lacking the respect and community support to deliver its intended results.
Further, it was put to me that the then Minister for Families, Judy Spence, promised to provide the number of domestic violence applications and subsequent orders issued on behalf of men and women but that has never been forthcoming. Not since 1999 has there been access to gender-based figures in Queensland. Police statistics in Victoria indicate that 20 per cent of apprehended violence orders are sought by men, which has changed the nature of those orders. Mr Bill O’Shea, President of the Law Institute of Victoria, said that their effectiveness had been reduced, and he commented:
They were introduced, really, to combat domestic violence, and they're now being used in a whole range of civil disputes, which has the effect of devaluing the significance of an intervention order.
I am sure that applies equally in New South Wales. Michelle Pathe, Director of the Stalking and Threat Management Centre, said the Victorian Department of Justice was already looking at intervention orders and where they were applied. Intervention orders are now being used indiscriminately in stalking cases without considering how appropriate they might be. That is also relevant in New South Wales because I do not believe that the world changes when people cross the Murray River.
The legislation seeks to deal with a number of recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, to which I will not refer as they have already been comprehensively dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister, in the second reading speech. I draw attention to two points that need to be addressed, and for which the Coalition reserves its right to address in a more formal way, if it so determines, in the Legislative Council. The first is whether apprehended violence orders should be taken out in the Local Court when proceedings are on foot in the Family Court. In other words, should both courts be involved because, after all, the Family Law has jurisdiction to issue interim orders against one party or the other? I simply lay that important matter on the table and do not express the viewpoint of the Coalition.
The second issue relates to police. Police are called out many times to domestic violence incidents during the late hours of the night when it is difficult to obtain an interim telephone domestic violence order. I appreciate that the amendments seek in some way to remedy that by providing that telephone interim orders will be available on a 24-hour basis in circumstances where the police officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection. They further provide that once a telephone interim order has been made the matter must be listed for hearing within 28 days. Further, they give police officers the power to detain or arrest a person against whom a telephone interim order is sought for the purposes of serving a copy of the order. That is all well and good, and I do not oppose it, but I signal something that came to my notice on a number of occasions. Despite these mechanisms being set up or established by statute, in many areas police find it very difficult to get an interim order late at night; the resources are not available and the people are not there to hear and grant the interim telephone orders.
I understand this matter is supported either by some police or by the Police Association, but it may be appropriate to enable a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above to issue an on-the-spot interim protection order to last for, say, 24 hours until the parties can get to court or obtain an interim telephone order. I urge the Attorney General to consider that matter because of the extreme difficulty of these situations. It may well be appropriate that some police have a 24-hour power to issue orders that apply until the next day when the parties can get to court or can get a telephone interim order.
In my opinion the amendments are well focused in that they attempt to provide for mediation under the Community Justice Centres Act. One would hope that will be especially helpful in neighbourhood disputes in respect of which apprehended violence orders have been taken out. That is because the way to resolve neighbourhood disputes is not by taking out AVOs. One would hope that they would be resolved through encouraging people to live together harmoniously, rather than ordering them to stay away from each other. With such orders, the problem remains and police are then required to enforce orders requiring one party to stay away from the other, creating a sense of victimhood and grievance. The more that can be done to resolve the grievances that people feel, the more likely it is that people will not be inclined to engage in threatening or violent conduct. 1948 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
This is a positive step, and it is to be welcomed. But, once again, adequate resources need to be provided. It is all very well to provide for mediation under the Community Justice Centres Act, but one needs a community justice centre. As an example, there is no such centre in my area of the Central Coast where there are tens of thousands of people. Though the Central Coast all up has 300,000 people, that sort of facility simply is not available to them. Putting this provision in the statute is one thing, but providing the resources necessary to make it work in reality is another.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House by going through all issues associated with domestic violence or apprehended violence. The Coalition acknowledges that legislation like this is important. We are always asking—and I appreciate the Government's initiatives in this case—that these matters should be subjected to detailed investigation and report before they are presented to Parliament. That has been done in this instance by the appropriate body, the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales. We are concerned that some groups with a very real interest in this matter may not have been consulted. The Attorney General might advise the House about that. We are concerned that there be discussion and possible further action on two issues, of police powers in emergency circumstances, that is, an officer of the rank of sergeant or above having the appropriate authority, and whether the orders should be regarded as appropriate in cases where proceedings are already pending in the Family Court. With those remarks, I indicate that the New South Wales Coalition, while it reserves its position in relation to further amendment, does not oppose the passage of the bill.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.22 a.m.]: I am delighted to support the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill, introduced by the Attorney General. The matters the subject of the bill are obviously of tremendous significance. The impact of domestic violence can be quite devastating upon its victims, who are usually women, and upon its witnesses, who are often children. It is also a problem of quite significant magnitude in a numerical sense, that is, the number of cases involved. In the area of Sydney that I represent there seems to be an increase in one category of domestic violence, according to the domestic violence liaison officer of the Liverpool Local Area Command. She has noticed an increase in the number of domestic violence attacks upon older men deriving from a change in our society whereby children are staying at home longer and there are more family units with adult children living in a house. There seems to be an increase in that category of domestic violence. That is not to suggest that the primary victims of domestic violence are other than women.
The second reading speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary noted that approximately one-third of the assaults recorded by police each year are domestic assaults. That certainly is consistent with the broad position demonstrated by the figures for the Liverpool Local Area Command. The figures for the Green Valley Local Area Command are in fact even higher than that. There are a number of potential responses to the problem. One response is in the category of developing government funded initiatives and policies. Some of those include the 115 NSW Police domestic violence liaison offices around the State who have been trained to assist domestic violence victims; priority public housing for victims of domestic violence and emergency crisis accommodation, despite the scandalous reduction in public housing funding by the Federal Liberal Government; the violence against women specialist unit, which develops and promotes effective prevention of domestic violence strategies and strategies to improve access to services for victims; funding for the domestic violence help line and the Department of Community Services help line and funding community service centres and family support centres; and the domestic violence intervention court model pilot, which aims to increase accountability for the perpetrators of domestic violence and to provide greater support and safety for victims.
Other of those government funded initiatives and policies include the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which helps amongst others victims of domestic violence by providing supported accommodation; intensive domestic violence training for all new Department of Community Services caseworkers and ongoing training for experienced regional caseworkers; the provision of legal advice and representation to women who apply for apprehended domestic violence orders; the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Program and domestic violence advocacy services, which provide women and their children with support, advocacy, referral and information; and the NSW Health education centres against violence, which provide specialised training, consultancy and resource development to NSW Health and interagency workers dealing with children and adults who have experienced sexual assault, domestic violence and emotional and physical abuse and neglect.
There can also be mainly local initiatives. One particular local initiative that I should mention is the magazine called On Alert, which was officially launched in Liverpool on 15 August. The magazine has been produced through the Liverpool Women's Resource Centre and is enthusiastically championed by Amanda Hill. It deals with a number of things other than just domestic violence, but that is certainly one of its focuses. This 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1949
magazine uses community education programs to reduce women's fear of crime and improve women's safety and security at home, at work and when out and about. It has developed a number of focus groups in the local community. About 10,000 copies have already been printed, and the magazine will be distributed free of charge to residents of south-west Sydney through their local councils. This is a particularly worthwhile initiative, and I am happy to be able to acknowledge it here.
However, there are a whole series of other ways of dealing with these sorts of issues, and those are the matters particularly the subject of this bill—the development of a system of apprehended violence orders. Of course, AVOs do not guarantee that domestic violence will not occur. People can breach court orders not to assault someone just as they breach the existing criminal law prohibition upon assault. Despite that, they are still a useful and important tool in many cases. This legislation is to be welcomed because it makes the apprehended violence order system more effective. The bill results from the report of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, which conducted an inquiry into part 15A of the Crimes Act, which deals with AVOs. There are a number of provisions that expand and broaden the AVOs scheme. I will mention several of them, rather than go through the bill in great detail.
Some of the provisions worthy of note include that the definition of intimidation is expanded to mean approaches made to any person that cause the person to fear for his or her safety by any technologically assisted means. The court will be able to grant an AVO where a victim claims no longer to be in fear, but where there is a history of personal violence and a likelihood that the defendant may commit a personal violence offence on the victim. Of course, that is a quite significant change in the way that AVOs traditionally have worked. It is aimed at dealing with a very real problem, and certainly ought to be supported. Another change is that a victim's reluctance to make application for an order where violence has occurred or there is a significant threat of violence will not be by itself a reason for the police not to make an application for an order. This also is a significant move away from the traditional system, and is another initiative that is to be welcomed.
The definition of stalking is made inclusive, rather than exclusive. Telephone interim orders will be available on a 24-hour basis in circumstances where the police officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection, so that you do not have to go to court during court hours. There are other changes, such as that the complaints and summons process will now be replaced by an application process under the Local Courts Act. Another particularly useful measure, and one which I think is well and truly overdue, is that one can now make an ancillary property recovery order to enable the retrieval of property of either a person protected or the defendant to an order. At the moment, retrieval of property is simply another excuse for a problem to arise and for a conflict to occur. I think this provision will go some way towards improving that situation.
The only other comment I would like to make is in response to a matter raised by the honourable member for Gosford. He raised the issue of police having the power to issue telephone interim orders. If the problem is as he has indicated, there is another way of solving it. That is to increase the capacity or number of magistrates who are able to issue out-of-hours orders. That is an equally effective way of dealing with the problem. I have difficulty with the proposal floated by the honourable member for Gosford. To be fair, he said he was putting it on the table rather than prosecuting it with a great deal of enthusiasm. His proposal was to allow police to issue the order. The problem with that is that this State has a separation of powers. It seems to me inappropriate for police to behave as courts. If police want to be able to issue binding orders of that nature, perhaps they should apply to magistrates.
It seems to me a fundamentally dangerous course to pursue to see a problem and, instead of finding a way to solve the problem by increasing the efficiency of out-of-hours magistrates, to simply throw yet more powers at the police in breach of what are reasonably traditional safeguards. I note that the honourable member for Gosford did not enthusiastically support it. That may change in another place in other legislation. However, he raised the matter and it is appropriate that I respond.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.30 a.m.]: As the honourable member for Gosford and the shadow Attorney General indicated, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. From time to time bills come before the House that are underpinned by bipartisan concern. Both the Opposition and the Government are genuinely concerned to ensure that domestic violence is minimised. Since January this year the horrific number of 12 people, 10 women and two children, have died as a result of domestic violence. That indicates that we have not yet managed to deal with domestic violence satisfactorily. For many years I practised as a solicitor with an abundance of family law clients, and I understand the tension and the agony that people can go through during a separation. I also understand that the most dangerous time for physical or violent reaction is probably in the 1950 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
early hours and days of two parties separating. We must ensure that effective provisions are in place to provide urgent protection for potential victims of domestic violence. The bill covers a number of matters, which I will not canvass broadly because both the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General have considered them.
The issuing of apprehended violence orders [AVO] in the very early phase of a separation or relationship breakdown is critical. I understand that men's groups argue that in some way men will be prejudiced when they eventually come before the Family Court if AVOs have been taken out against them. On balance one must acknowledge that generally, but not always, it is women and children who are the victims of domestic violence. The fact that 10 women and two children have died since January is a stark and sad reminder of our need to err on the side of caution when seeking to protect women and children from domestic violence. This comprehensive bill goes a fair way in dealing with some of the concerns about domestic violence and apprehended violence. I am satisfied that the bill has been developed after extensive consultation and discussion through the Apprehended Violence Legal Issues Committee, an interagency committee under the auspices of the Attorney General. We should acknowledge that consultation and that the bill, therefore, has merit.
Both the honourable member for Liverpool and the honourable member for Gosford referred to proposed new section 562O, which relates to telephone interim orders. The honourable member for Gosford said he was floating the idea, but the honourable member for Liverpool put forward genuine points about the relative merit of telephone interim orders and changes that might be considered by the Government in due course. I believe there is merit in giving police the power to issue apprehended violence orders on an interim basis without having to contact a magistrate. The northern beaches area is lacking in police numbers, particularly during the night, when it is more likely that domestic violence will occur. The parties come home, they are together and tensions can often arise. Police tell me that dealing with domestic violence can take up an enormous amount of their time. Police attending scenes of domestic violence must fulfil a number of requirements. If children are present during domestic violence, under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act police must make a report to the Department of Community Services helpline. If criminal charges are to be laid police have to take statements.
If we are serious about giving police effective tools to deal with these matters we must consider providing them with a more streamlined process to issue domestic violence or apprehended violence orders. Currently police officers have to seek the agreement of a magistrate, or possibly a chamber magistrate, and sometimes calls have to be made at 1.00 a.m. or 2.00 a.m. However, on balance I see no reason why the time of both the magistracy and police officers should be taken up in trying to obtain such orders. I suggest that the Government consider allowing an officer of the rank of sergeant or above to make an interim apprehended violence order. That could only be a good thing when one remembers that 12 people have died since January as a result of domestic violence. I acknowledge the concerns of the honourable member for Liverpool and the validity of his argument about the separation of powers. However, police already have the power to determine whether a defendant will be released on bail. In a sense police are already able to act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Although, on balance, this is good legislation and appears to have real merit, if we want to make the most vulnerable in our community as safe as possible perhaps we should go that one step further and make it a little better, provided that there is the safeguard of a senior officer making the decision, provided that the order is an interim order that will last only until the parties are brought before the court and provided that they can get to court fairly quickly. The northern beaches have only one refuge, the Women's Resource Centre. I will not say in which suburb it is situated. I have a close association with the refuge, so I am aware of the real problems refuges have in trying to get resources from various government departments to finance their programs. Domestic violence should be considered as one of the biggest blights on modern society. I encourage both the Federal and State governments to take a more co-ordinated approach to supporting front-line workers in women's resource centres across the State.
The Baringa Women's Refuge has a number of amazingly dedicated women who are interested in trying to do the right thing for those among us who are vulnerable, particularly women and children who are involved in domestic violence. I encourage the Government to consider providing more, not fewer, resources to such organisations. I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the Attorney General. The appointment of violence prevention officers throughout the State at various sites, some in police stations and some in other government departments, has been one of the good initiatives taken by the Government in its overall approach to addressing domestic violence and violence in general. However, one of the bad things the Government has done is to indicate that those violence prevention officers will be pulled back into offices of the Department of Community Services. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1951
I have dealt with an officer on the northern beaches named Jennifer Huxley, who does an amazing job. Based on my assessment of the work that I have seen her carry out, I am able to say that the Government is getting it wrong when it plans to take people such as Jennifer Huxley away from their current locations, because the system appears to work quite well. Jennifer occupies an office just outside the Manly Local Area Command. I am amazed that the Government proposes to move her out of that site because clearly her presence is a constant reminder to police officers of the dangers of domestic violence. Many young officers who are graduates of the accelerated programs at the Goulburn Police College do not fully understand the impact of domestic violence and the inherent dangers of it.
As recently as a week ago last Monday I facilitated a meeting between two senior commanders on the northern beaches and the local women's resource centre to ensure that the issues involved in domestic violence are at the forefront of their minds and to ensure that new recruits and young officers get the message that they have a significant role to play in minimising the incidence of domestic violence by addressing, stemming and preventing it. Domestic violence statistics are characterised by a high rate of recidivism. I suggest to the State Government that guidelines and a list of available services should be provided for all police officers who attend domestic violence incidents. I acknowledge that in some remote areas of the State, few services are available, but in city areas, services are available for both the perpetrator and the victim.
If the perpetrator has a modicum of commonsense and the victim has any capacity to access support services, the police should offer them a list of available services in the hope of preventing police officers being repeatedly called upon to attend incidents of domestic violence. A reduction in the incidence of domestic violence would benefit not only individual police officers but also, in a broader sense, the State. For example, at Manly court, two court days out of five are assigned to dealing with domestic violence matters. One day is set aside as a list day and the magistrate sets another day aside for hearings, which means that two-fifths of the court's time is taken up with domestic violence matters.
The Government should calculate the cost to the community of two court days at Manly multiplied by the number of Local Courts in the State and add to that the cost of police spending an enormous amounts of their time responding to domestic violence issues. Some very sound policy arguments exist to suggest that the Government should be trying to prevent the recurrence of domestic violence offences. Bearing in mind the number of recidivist domestic violence perpetrators, it is of paramount importance that the Government adopt a co-ordinated response to addressing offences of violence. Having said that, I reiterate that the Opposition welcomes any focus by the House on domestic violence problems.
In the past few months representatives of various women's resource centres have gathered outside Parliament House in Macquarie Street. Some members of Parliament took the opportunity to speak to them. The representatives placed roses on the front fence and at the gates of the oldest Parliament in Australia. They were crying out for help from the Government to address the number of women and children who are killed in domestic violence incidents. The bill is a small start in the Government's response, and much more could be done. I encourage the Government to implement the suggestions I have made.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [11.44 a.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill, which improves protection of some of the most vulnerable in society—the victims of domestic violence. The bill makes new provisions to facilitate apprehended violence orders [AVOs] for victims of domestic violence, including greater protection during AVO court proceedings. The bill also expands definitions of domestic violence such as "stalking" or "domestic relationships." Disturbing results from the Australian Bureau of Statistics first national personal safety survey 2006 reveal that in the 12 months prior to the survey, one in 20 women in Australia experienced physical violence. The survey found that women were most likely to be assaulted in the home and, most commonly, by family members or friends. While men also experience domestic violence, the overwhelming majority of victims and survivors of domestic violence are women.
Many people think domestic violence involves only physical and sexual harm, but it also involves social, financial, and oral abuse. Usually the psychological abuse precedes physical abuse, and this can crush a woman's confidence and prevent her from leaving her abuser and from leaving a dangerous situation. Indeed, for many women leaving a domestic violence situation can be difficult. Women who experience years of psychological abuse can be fearful of life outside the relationship, or do not know about life outside of the relationship, and are uncertain whether they will be able to care for themselves and their children. The risk of violence can be greater when a woman is trying to escape from a perpetrator of domestic violence. Violence against a woman is reported to escalate after she has separated from her abusive partner. I support the bill's aim of providing better protection to victims during this very distressing and dangerous time. 1952 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
The biggest win in the bill for victims of domestic violence could be the introduction of 24-hour telephone interim orders, and new court powers and measures for AVO proceedings. Extending the period for telephone interim orders to 24 hours removes the need for women to attend a court as soon they report domestic violence to police. We all know that courts can be intimidating, especially for someone who has endured long- term physical and psychological abuse, no matter how routine the process is. Providing for an interim AVO prior to attending court will give women the opportunity to be safe, to get help and to be able to adjust to the situation before they attend court. It will also make immediate protection possible in what for many women will have been an exhausting set of circumstances.
The bill also allows courts to issue AVOs when there is a history of violence and either the court or the police fear for the safety of a victim, regardless of whether the victim believes she is in danger. There are many reasons why a woman would tell a court she does not fear for her safety when really she is at risk. Some perpetrators are apologetic after violent episodes and promise never to harm their partners again while others make threats of more violence that compel frightened women to lie about their fears. The new powers will provide additional protection to victims in those situations, and all women welcome those provisions. I also strongly support the provisions that allow alleged victims of a sexual offence, where a defendant has been charged, to give evidence at AVO proceedings consistent with section 294B of the Criminal Procedure Act, thereby preventing direct eye contact from occurring between the victim and defendant. Perpetrators of domestic violence often have spent years suppressing their victim's confidence and exercising control over them. It is vital that they are prevented from continuing their intimidation during AVO proceedings.
However, I raise a concern I have about the bill that I share with domestic violence advocacy organisations. The bill permits applications for variation or revocation of AVOs by police officers only, if the order protects a child under the age of 16 years. While I understand that the intention is to protect children, I am concerned about why a woman's right to apply for a variation or revocation is completely removed. A court could refuse an application by a woman if it is unreasonable or could result in harm to a child. I would like the Attorney General to explain why the Government wishes to deny women the power to simply apply.
Taking the step of escaping from domestic violence is difficult and it is important that we provide support and make the processes as straightforward as possible. Recently the City of Sydney council joined forces with the Minister for Police and NSW Police to help victims of domestic violence and issued a new guide containing practical information for victims. The guide provides information about how to apply for an AVO, who to contact for help. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in 2005 the City of Sydney has the third highest rate of domestic assaults in the metropolitan area. Therefore, this is a very important issue for me as the city's representative. Domestic violence does not discriminate; it is a problem for all groups and family types, but especially for women. Support for the victims of this crime is essential. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [11.50 a.m.]: Anyone who does not think we have a problem with domestic violence should go to Sutherland Local Court on any Wednesday. It is called domestic violence day. Women and men who have suffered from domestic violence in one way or another gather in a room at the courthouse that is supervised by the domestic violence police and the Victims Liaison Support Group. They are waiting, quite often in fear, to have their matters dealt with by the magistrate. That happens every Wednesday, week in and week out. Domestic violence is a scourge on our community, something of which we should be ashamed and about which we should take every step to eradicate from our society.
I welcome the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill, and I want to refer briefly to a number of its provisions. For example, the definition of "intimidation" includes causing someone to fear for his or her safety following telephone text messaging, emailing and other technologically assisted means of communication. That is becoming an increasingly common way of intimidating a person in a domestic or personal relationship. It is pleasing that the definition of "intimidation" has been expanded to keep pace with modern parlance and technology. Stalking is another common means of causing women to feel afraid, particularly when the perpetrator frequently turns up to a woman's place of work, making it almost impossible for her to conduct business or to earn money, and effectively preventing the woman from holding down a job.
It is important that a court will be able to issue an apprehended violence order [AVO] even if the victim claims to no longer be in fear. As a practitioner at Sutherland Local Court I have seen women in violent domestic relationships, with bruises, suddenly change their story to, "Well, he loves me again, it is all over, it is never going to happen again." Sadly, it does happen again, and it happens time and time again. The victim goes back before the court, and the husband, lover or partner is again in custody downstairs claiming, "It will never happen again if she takes me back." But, sadly, it does happen again. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1953
Honourable members should take the opportunity to view a film made in 1993 at Campbelltown Local Court called So Help Me God. It depicts a man sitting in shorts and thongs in front of a magistrate on the defence side of the courtroom intimidating a woman just by his looks. He intimidates her to the point that when the police prosecutor puts her into the witness box, she says, "I have no fears for my safety." It is quite obvious to the prosecutor, the magistrate and to the legal aid solicitor that she has very real fears for her safety. That was very apparent to every viewer of that television show.
Three months later that character, whom the woman said she had no feared, appeared in Sutherland Local Court charged with threatening her. When the police attended the residence they found the man seated in a wardrobe with a pair of scissors, waiting to stab her as she came through the door. Intimidation is a very serious matter and I welcome the addition of that provision. A victim's reluctance to make an application for an AVO is not a good reason for police not to make the application if violence occurs, there is a significant threat of violence, or the victim has a disability and has no guardian. Police are often in the best position to make a rational, informed and objective decision, but the parties involved all too often cannot do so.
I also welcome the provision in the bill that will allow a court or an authorised officer to make an ancillary property order to enable the retrieval of property of a person protected by an apprehended violence order or of the defendant under such an order. The court is able to direct a police officer to attend with the person who is retrieving their property. All too often in domestic violence matters, a woman says, "Yes, I want to leave, I want to get out of the place, but he has got all my stuff. He refuses to let me back on the property to collect my stuff. He is keeping my licence, my credit cards, all my personal clothing and possessions." Often that is an incentive to re-enter a relationship of domestic violence. The new provision provides the protection the alleged victim needs to go back to get his or her property, to make rational, informed decisions and not worry about where their property is, who has it, whether their credit card is being abused and so on.
Another welcome provision is the availability of 24-hour telephone interim orders, whether or not the court is sitting, in circumstances where the police officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection. Sadly, domestic violence knows no clock, it knows no time, and it often happens at the worst time of the year, that is, between Christmas and New Year. When families are in conflict over little issues, domestic violence erupts over whether the child is to visit the father or the mother, and families are divided by domestic violence. The availability of a 24-hour telephone interim order, when a police officer has reason to believe an order is required for immediate protection, is a step in the right direction.
The bill deletes the requirement for police to attend the incident, and it is replaced by the provision that allows any police officer to apply for a telephone interim order, regardless of whether the officer attended the incident. In domestic violence matters it is common for a family to attend a police station to wait for a telephone interim order. There is a great deal to do. Statements need to be taken from everyone involved in the incident and police have to apply for the order by telephone or fax to the authorised office, and wait for a decision. Often police have to attend the premises. The provision of telephone interim orders streamlines the issuing of an apprehended violence order and assists in the protection of the persons involved, because one police officer does not have to do all the work. If there is a change of shift, the provision of an telephone interim allows for more and better use of resources.
Another important point is that a police officer must apply for an telephone interim order when a defendant is charged with a domestic violence offence unless there is an AVO in place and the person is charged with domestic violence. Again, that is an important part of police procedures. It is important for police to be able to apply for orders when a person is charged with a domestic violence offence. I note that the bill provides for conflict resolution. Given the adversarial nature of domestic violence litigation, it takes time, it is stressful on both the applicant and his or her family, and it is stressful on their relatives. If a neighbourhood dispute involves personal violence and an order is sought, resolution can be achieved without going through the court system. In conclusion, I personally record my personal thanks to the police at Sutherland and Miranda for their work in domestic violence proceedings, the hardworking domestic violence liaison officers, those who run the two safe houses for women that I know of, and the women's groups who take the time, make the effort, and are dedicated in their commitment to the welfare of women and their children who are subject to the scourge of domestic violence in our communities.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE DAVID AMOS ARBLASTER, A FORMER MINISTER OF THE CROWN
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [12.01 p.m.], by leave: I move: 1954 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
That this House extends to Mrs Arblaster and family the deep sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained by the death on 10 August 2006 of David Amos Arblaster, a former Minister of the Crown.
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [12.01 p.m.]: David Arblaster was the member for Mosman from 1972 to 1984. He was the fifth person to represent the seat since its creation in 1913. David was born in Sydney in 1929, the only child of Hugh and Ivy Arblaster, and was educated at Manly Public School and then later at Shore. David studied accountancy but that was not his lifelong job. He had a varied career. Early on he became a salesman for Larke Hoskins Ltd in Sydney, then a jackaroo, and then a grazier in outback New South Wales and south-west Queensland.
In 1968 David became a director of Noble Lowndes Australia, and later Managing Director of Mitchell's Marina at Church Point in Pittwater—a marina that I certainly knew when I was growing up in Terry Hills. David joined the Liberal Party in 1956 and, over the next two decades, held a number of party positions, including being a member of the State executive and then a country and metropolitan vice-president. David was actively involved in bringing young people into the Liberal movement and he was the last appointed Liberal Youth Council chairman before the Young Liberal movement was reconstituted in 1964 as an independent wing of the Liberal Party.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: He immediately preceded John Howard.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: He immediately preceded John Howard. David was elected member for Mosman in 1972 and in early 1976 became Minister for Culture, Sport and Recreation under Premier Sir Eric Willis. David represented the seat of Mosman at another three State elections before retiring in 1984. After leaving politics David and Mary returned to their property at Cunnamulla in far western Queensland, then retired to Corlette on the New South Wales Central Coast, where David could indulge his love for boating and fishing.
David was a patron of the Mosman 16-foot skiff club and was an active member of the Middle Harbour Yacht Club. In fact, David used to say that he was bit like Ratty from the Wind in the Willows—he was never happier than when messing about in boats, which is something that also appeals to me. David and Mary were married for 52 years. David is survived by his wife, two daughters, five grandchildren and two great grandchildren. Mary and her daughter Ann are in the gallery today. We want them to know that we respect David's contribution to this Parliament and to community life over so many years. We are very pleased that members of his family are able to be with us today while we remember him.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [12.03 p.m.]: I join my parliamentary colleagues in expressing condolences to the family of David Amos Arblaster, who was elected on 29 July 1972 to serve as the member for Mosman. David was born on 16 November 1929, the only child of Hugh and Ivy Arblaster. He died on 10 August 2006. He was married to Mary for 52 years and had two daughters, Ann and Fiona; five grandchildren, Heidi, Luke, Hannah, Jessica and Briar; and two great grandchildren, Riley and Grace. Earlier I had an opportunity to speak to Mary and to Ann Smith, David's daughter, who are in the gallery today. It was interesting speaking to them and remembering David's life and his particular fondness for sport.
As a member of the Liberal Party David was re-elected four times—in 1973, 1976, 1978 and 1981—to serve the residents of the seat of Mosman, most of which has been encompassed within the electorate of North Shore since the 1991 redistribution. All the Mosman local government area is now encompassed within my electorate of North Shore. On 5 October 1972 in his maiden speech David Arblaster spoke to the Appropriation Bill and remarked that the principles of sound budget were "to receive the maximum benefit for each dollar spent. It is a matter of deciding priorities." He then went on to speak of the tangible benefits of the budget brought down by the Liberal-National Government and said:
... the construction of a new dam, additional benefits gained from irrigation, the saving in time and fuel as a result of the construction of better roads and highways and the encouragement of industry and people to settle in decentralised areas with a consequent saving in the provision of additional services in the metropolitan area. Other obvious benefits include the planting of new and larger forests.
Clearly, the Government of which David Arblaster was a new member had a far greater determination to expand New South Wales and to invest in the priority areas that we on this side of Parliament still think are relevant today. He was indeed a man of his time and a man of today. He continued in his maiden speech to outline what he described as tangible benefits and said: 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1955
... a lessening of sorrow and hardship in the field of child and social welfare, the establishment of additional national parks for the benefit of present and future generations, payment to local government bodies in respect of rate concessions for pensioners, expenditure on cultural activities and subsidies paid to hospitals.
David was a man who understood what real priorities were. A well-liked member of Parliament, David Arblaster was elected following the mid-term retirement of Pat Morton. He served as Minister for Culture, Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Tourism. He retired in 1984. David Arblaster joined the Liberal Party in 1965. He served the organisational wing of the party in a number of positions, including as a member of the State executive and then as country and metropolitan vice-president. In 1964 David was chairman of the Liberal Party's Youth Council, the forerunner to the Young Liberal movement. As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition noted, at that time John Howard was deputy chairman of the Youth Council.
David Arblaster was educated at Manly Public School and then at Shore. He then studied accountancy. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, he was a salesman for Larke Hoskins Ltd in Sydney and in the United Kingdom. He was a jackaroo and then a grazier in New South Wales and south-western Queensland. In 1968 David became a director of Nobel Lowndes Australia and later Managing Director of Mitchell's Marina at Church Point in Pittwater. David Arblaster was a very keen sportsman and excelled at rugby, rowing, athletics and swimming. He also had a lifelong interest in sailing. As the Leader of the Opposition noted earlier, David was fond of saying that he was never happier than when messing about in boats. I told Mary and Ann that I am familiar with that saying in my house, as my youngest son often uses it.
David was also a very keen fisherman—something I also discussed with Mary and Ann. David was patron of the New South Wales 16-foot skiff club. Following his retirement from Parliament, David and Mary farmed in Cunnamulla in Queensland and then returned to Singleton to care for Mary's mother. They then moved to Corlette in Port Stephens, which David and Mary described as God's country, and more recently they moved to Mangerton in the Wollongong area. I extend my sympathy to Mary Arblaster and Anne Smith.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [12.09 p.m.]: I speak with a sense of sadness to mark the passing of one of our colleagues and a great man for democracy in New South Wales. I extend my sympathy to his widow, Mary Arblaster, and to his daughter, Ann Smith. I was elected to this place in 1981 and enjoyed three years serving on the same side of the House as David Arblaster. He was a great character. He and Joe Schipp, the then member for Wagga Wagga, were close mates and I spent many an hour—sometimes probably too many hours—in their company late at night. They were gregarious and fun loving, highly intelligent, and very proud of the positions to which they had been elected.
I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library a copy of David Arblaster's maiden speech, to which the honourable member for North Shore also referred, delivered during debate on the Appropriation Bill in 1972. The honourable member for North Shore selected quotes from that speech that revealed David's strong rural interests and affiliations. David also said:
Other tangible benefits include the construction of a new dam, additional benefits gained from irrigation, the saving in time and fuel as a result of the construction of better roads and highways and the encouragement of industry and people to settle in decentralized areas …
David Arblaster was a man of great vision because they are still goals that we must achieve today. Unfortunately, we have been bogged down for the past 15 years—particularly the past 10 years—and have not achieved those goals. David Arblaster was truly a man of vision who had an understanding of the regions. He went on to say, in part:
In my view the most pleasing aspect of the economy in New South Wales is the general improvement in rural areas. Rural income in general has shown a significant and much needed rise. Wool prices are exceeding all estimates. Prices received for meat exports are firm. The demand for wheat is good, as illustrated by recent sales to mainland China. If—and when preparing a budget there must be many ifs—many areas of the States were not suffering from severe drought conditions, New South Wales would be in a much better position than it is and the coming year would present a far brighter picture. A good soaking of rain with follow-up rains would not only benefit pastures and crops but, more important, would restore confidence in the country areas of our State. Often we are prone to forget that the prosperity of the State is to a large extent still dependent on the prosperity of primary industries.
I love that man. There is no doubt about that: he got it dead right. Nothing has changed in all the years since then—except that the price of wool is not as buoyant as it was in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. But export sales of meat are once again reaching record levels. We certainly still need soaking rains. I put it clearly on the record that agriculture is still the biggest single employer in this land. We are still an agricultural nation. That single industry is bigger than the automotive industry, manufacturing, retailing, or mining. 1956 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
David Arblaster was a man of many facets. He understood rural industries and gained his income from them. He understood the highs and lows. But, as the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for North Shore have said, David also loved his boats. I remember that many of the conversations we had during those fun times were about boats. He would always say, "I'm going to take you sailing; come on, we'll duck out tomorrow and go for a quick sail." I never did get there and I am often sorry about that—I was probably pretending to be too busy. David Arblaster was a person who made this place richer for his presence. He added not only colour but intelligence and character. As I said, he brought vision to his constituency, to the Parliament, and to the people of New South Wales. He was a great credit to New South Wales, and his contribution will be marked for the future. To Mary and Ann, I offer my sympathy.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.13 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government, I pass on our condolences to Mary and Ann. I did not have the opportunity of knowing David Arblaster in Parliament but my predecessor as Labor member for Newcastle, Arthur Wade, served for a long period with David. Having listened to the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for North Shore and our great colleague from the west, the honourable member for Lachlan, I am left in no doubt that David Arblaster had vision and was certainly very popular in this place. Upon the passing of a colleague I think it is most important to note their service to Parliament and to the people of New South Wales and the sacrifices that their families make during those years of public service.
David Arblaster certainly had a distinguished career within the Parliament. He enjoyed his sport. He focused on the needs not only of country but of youth and children. Throughout his time in this place David was obviously a mentor to members of the Young Liberals, including the current Prime Minister. I think it is important for members of any political party to mentor those who may come after us. I believe also that 52 years of marriage is a fantastic affirmation of a couple's commitment to their relationship and the many positive things it brings. On behalf of Government members, I extend my condolences to Mary and Ann and mark the passing of a colleague who brought much to this House.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
Motion agreed to.
[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 12.17 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery Mr Antoine Moussa Zahra, a member of Parliament for the Batroun region in Lebanon. Mr Zahra is also a current member of the Foreign Affairs and Displaced Committee in the Lebanese Parliament.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 78 (2) of the Independent Commission against Corruption Act, the report entitled "Report on Investigation into the Case Management and Administration of Community Service Orders", dated September 2006.
Ordered to be printed.
PETITIONS
Artarmon Public School Bus Service
Petition requesting the provision of a school bus for the children within the southern precincts of the catchment area for Artarmon Public School, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.
Bus Services 326 and 327
Petition asking that the Government urgently reinstate the former timetables of bus services 326 and 327, received from Ms Clover Moore. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1957
CountryLink Rail Services
Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
CountryLink Regional Rail Services
Petition requesting retention of CountryLink regional rail services, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Police Resources
Petition requesting increased police resources for New South Wales, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
National Art School
Petition opposing proposed changes to the National Art School, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Colo High School Airconditioning
Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all classrooms and the library of Colo High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Cremorne Community Mental Health Centre
Petition opposing the proposed relocation of health services provided by the Cremorne Community Mental Health Centre, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.
Breast Screening Funding
Petition requesting funding to ensure access to breast screening services for women aged 40 to 79 years and to reverse falling participation rates, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Mental Health Services
Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Cammeray Open Space Rezoning
Petition opposing the rezoning of 2 Vale Street, Cammeray, from open space to residential C, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.
Private Native Forestry
Petitions requesting a review of the draft code of practice for private native forestry, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli and Mr Andrew Stoner.
Recreational Fishing
Petitions opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr John Turner and Mr Andrew Stoner.
Swansea Ambulance Station
Petition requesting the provision of an ambulance station for Swansea, received from Mr Milton Orkopoulos.
Alcohol and Drug Services
Petition requesting increased funding for, and expansion of, inner city alcohol and drug services, received from Ms Clover Moore. 1958 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
CSR Quarry, Hornsby
Petition requesting a public inquiry into Hornsby Shire Council's acquisition of CSR Quarry in Hornsby, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Kempsey Shire Council
Petition requesting an inquiry into Kempsey Shire Council, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, Traffic Conditions
Petition requesting a right turn arrow for traffic travelling west on Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, turning north onto Eastern Valley Way, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.
Old Northern and New Line Roads Strategic Route Development Study
Petition requesting funding for implementation of the Old Northern and New Line roads strategic route development study, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Bells Line of Road
Petition requesting improvements to sign posting, sealing of road shoulders and removal of dead and overhanging foliage on the Bells Line of Road, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Cross City Tunnel
Petition requesting government decisions concerning the Cross City Tunnel to be based on the public interest, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Reordering of General Business
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [2.24 p.m.]: I move:
That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Electricity Prices] have precedence on Thursday 21 September 2006.
I seek precedence because the Minister for Energy dumped this announcement on page 5 of the Australian Financial Review today. It is the latest attack on New South Wales families and, in particular, country families. It must be given precedence because in the unlikely event that the Iemma Labor Government is re-elected in March 2007 people will pay more for their electricity. I start with a word of advice for New South Wales families: If you want to know what Labor's plans are for electricity prices, do not visit the web site, do not call a local member, go to page 5 of the Australian Financial Review. On one of the busiest media days of the year this is where Labor dumps the announcements it is ashamed of. Today, when the world is watching the Steve Irwin memorial service, the Minister for Energy is trying to take out his trash. On page 5 of the Australian Financial Review the Minister for misconduct says that he will slug New South Wales families struggling with higher fuel prices, mortgages and higher food prices with higher power bills, despite the fact that in 2004-05 the Labor Government gouged more than half a billion dollars out of New South Wales Government electricity assets to fill its budget black hole. It is a disgrace.
It is even more of a disgrace because during the drought the Labor Government proposes to hit country people unequally. It proposes to phase out the Electricity Price Equalisation Scheme, and that will result in an even greater impost on country families in the middle of a drought. The motion should be debated tomorrow because the people of New South Wales want to know what to expect in the unlikely event that those opposite 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1959
are re-elected next year. They are hiding a whole host of things. Yesterday we heard from the Premier about funding forums to give Lebanese Australians priority access to the welfare system, but a Government that treats country New South Wales with utter contempt is refusing to do the same for drought-stricken farmers. The Treasurer wrote a book saying that the only way to generate growth in regional New South Wales was to pay country people below award wages. It is a disgrace. The Minister's knowledge of country New South Wales begins and ends in western Sydney.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Energy will come to order. The Leader of The Nationals will address the Chair.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My motion should be debated tomorrow—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The motion should be debated tomorrow because Labor should come clean on its plans now instead of pushing the issue aside until after the next election, as it has in relation to the Lane Cove Tunnel. It is a disgrace. [Time expired.]
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [2.29 p.m.]: I am sure Government members will recall that when Labor inherited government from the Coalition, the rotten boroughs of county councils were a rump of National Party patronage, supported only by unnaturally high electricity prices. The New South Wales State Labor Government reformed the electricity industry and that is why this State has comparatively low electricity prices. Members opposite have not stated that New South Wales has the second lowest prices for electricity in Australia, or that New South Wales prices are among the lowest in the world compared to those in the United States of America, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. Members opposite did not tell us that!
The process of price setting is open and accountable. As all honourable members know, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, a body that is independent of government, sets prices for a defined period. Currently the tribunal, in an open, accountable and transparent way, is setting the prices for electricity for the period 2007 to 2011. Some members of Parliament do not realise just how incredibly expensive electricity was when Labor was elected to govern in 1995. Heaven help us if we ever go back to that. Do honourable members think the Leader of The Nationals has made out a case for priority?
Mr Joseph Tripodi: No!
Mr CARL SCULLY: The members have voted. The answer is no.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 35
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Cansdell Mr McTaggart Mr Slack-Smith Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Maguire Mr Hazzard Mr Pringle Mr R. W. Turner 1960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Noes, 51
Ms Allan Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mr Price Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mr Iemma Mr Sartor Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Scully Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McBride Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Ms Gadiel Ms Nori Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Tellers, Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mr Pearce Mr Martin
Pair
Mrs Hancock Ms D'Amore
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
MADDISON HALL PAROLE
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Given that since 1999 convicted murderer Maddison Hall has raped and sexually assaulted three female prisoners before and after undergoing a sex change procedure while in prison, and given that Hall is up for parole tomorrow, what action Has the Attorney taken to ensure that Hall is not released into the community?
Mr BOB DEBUS: I can give the House the following information. On 18 July the State Parole Authority granted parole to Maddison Hall. Last week my staff met with Mrs Saunders, partner and close family friend of a victim of Maddison Hall. During that meeting my staff undertook to seek a conference with the Crown Advocate so that they could discuss the reasoning of the Supreme Court and test their own views about the matter. That was, I might say, unprecedented, but I am pleased to say that the Crown Advocate agreed to a conference and I believe that took place yesterday. It bears repeating that the State opposed the grant of parole because there were concerns about the possibility of Hall reoffending. I sought a review of the decision in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. I am considering further advice on an appeal. The State Parole Authority has subsequently revoked Hall's parole.
JOBS AND INVESTMENT
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to secure jobs in New South Wales?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government is surprised and disappointed after today's news that Westpac is considering moving up to 485 jobs from New South Wales to Bangalore in India. As a result, the Department of State and Regional Development has been asked to meet with Westpac chiefs and carefully examine options for keeping those jobs in New South Wales. I am advised that the bank has not yet finalised 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1961
moving any jobs offshore, and I would advise Westpac to be careful about proceeding and to remember the experience of other companies that have moved offshore and regretted such a move.
Many other financial institutions in Australia choose to do similar work in New South Wales, and given the major contracts Westpac has with the Government, any such move will have an impact on its relationship with the Government. Westpac currently holds two major New South Wales Government banking contracts: the transactional banking contracts and the Government credit card account. Today I advise that any decision by Westpac, or similar moves by any other bank, regarding the outsourcing of New South Wales jobs will be taken into consideration when the Government signs its banking contracts. Therefore, banks should take into account our concerns because the Government's concerns are the concerns of the people of New South Wales and of the workers who hold those jobs. The Government wants companies to keep their jobs in New South Wales and is keen to do business with companies who want to keep jobs in this State.
Mr Brad Hazzard: With whom is your Government banking?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I just said that we have contracts with the major banks, and Westpac is one of them.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I advise the House that New South Wales is the home to Westpac's call centre and home to much of the financial services industry in this country. For example, Bankers Trust, Citibank and Macquarie Bank all have call centres in Sydney. ING Direct has set up its call centre on the Central Coast, in response to an interjection by the honourable member for Lachlan. The Commonwealth Bank has its call centre in Newcastle.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Tell us about Telstra.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, I will come to Telstra. Stellar set up its call centre in Wollongong and has recently expanded by 100 workers. Fidelity, the international funds manager, recently set up in Sydney, and there are more to come. Australian consumers and businesses want their banks to create local jobs rather than to send them offshore. I urge Westpac to re-evaluate its decision and look at what is on offer in New South Wales.
Mr Chris Hartcher: What will you do?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government is more than prepared to assist the company in making its decision to remain here, as we have done in the past with Fidelity, which drew no comment from the honourable member for Gosford. ING located its call centre on the Central Coast, which also drew no comment from the honourable member, an area he is supposed to represent. I return to my earlier point about Westpac thinking very carefully about its decision because a recent survey of a number of Australian companies that have made that decision, found that about 70 per cent of those companies have been unhappy with the result of sending their jobs offshore. That recent study was conducted by Deloittes.
For example, office rentals can be significantly lower in Australia, and even lower in country towns. Regional towns such as Armidale, Wollongong and Wagga Wagga with teaching institutions and universities are ideal for banks that want access to a highly skilled workforce. Office rents in Mumbai can be as high as $810 per square metre, whereas premium office space in Armidale costs only $245 per square metre. They are very important factors for Westpac to consider when making its decision. Westpac should also know that its customers and workers would be the losers from any move to send jobs offshore. The Government will urge the bank to stay here and consider the value of our regional towns, or we will re-evaluate our future relationship with the bank, based on its decision.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The potential move to India is not surprising when one considers the context in which it is being evaluated; that is the context of WorkChoices. It is no surprise that companies in Australia are taking a more callous approach to customers and employees, given the new industrial relations regime, 1962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
thanks to Canberra. It is a race to the bottom under the WorkChoices package, which the State Opposition happily supports. Something that would not encourage businesses to move to Mumbai or Bangalore—
Mr Chris Hartcher: Totally support it.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The honourable member for Gosford would not just encourage businesses to do that; he would help them pack their bags. It is no surprise that the Opposition is lining up to support their friends in Canberra and the WorkChoices package.
Mr Frank Sartor: And don't forget interest rates.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the Minister for Planning pointed out, we should not forget interest rates; and we will not. The biggest barrier to further economic activity and the creation of jobs is the interest rate policy of the Commonwealth Government. Last week a leading industry expert, Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group, said, "Clearly the two interest rate rises are now biting." Australian Business Limited [ABL]—which has just appointed a new executive, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe—said, "It is clear rising petrol prices, interest rates, ongoing drought, the end of the property boom … have all taken their toll on Australia's largest State economies." Patricia Forsythe is off to a good start at ABL. In response to the honourable member for Strathfield, we will continue our discussions with Westpac to convince the company of the merits of remaining in Australia and of the merits of a regional location.
MADDISON HALL PAROLE
Mr PETER DEBNAM: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Given that the Attorney General has failed to monitor convicted paedophile John Lewthwaite, despite his specific promise, and given that the parole authority previously released Maddison Hall on the condition that he would not spread HIV, what new guarantee can the Attorney General give the community that when Hall is released he will be effectively monitored and the community protected?
Mr BOB DEBUS: I have described legal actions that I have under consideration with respect to this matter but the Parole Board is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Minister for Corrective Services. That is the plain fact of the matter.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Attorney General made promises about John Lewthwaite that were absolutely worthless.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is debating the matter.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ALLEGATIONS
Mr ALAN ASHTON: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What advice has the Attorney General received on matters relating to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
Mr BOB DEBUS: On 29 August I informed the House that Crown Solicitor's advice would be sought regarding certain phone calls by senior New South Wales Liberal Party figures, namely, the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Bill Heffernan to Mr Greg Smith, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP]. The Crown Solicitor has now provided advice concerning these matters. In preparing this advice, the Crown Solicitor, like the Government, relied on direct quotes and commentary in media articles. He did not have the benefit of knowing the full content of any possible conversations between Mr Smith, the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Heffernan. These remain unknown. In response to whether there has been any breach of the law by the Leader of the Opposition or Senator Heffernan, the Crown Solicitor advises:
It was, in my view, inappropriate for Mr Debnam and Senator Heffernan to have approached Mr Smith directly by telephone. I think it is inappropriate for a high public office holder to communicate directly with an independent decision maker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order and cease interjecting. The Attorney General has the call.
Mr BOB DEBUS: The Crown Solicitor goes on to state: 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1963
That will be all the more so, where the high public office holder might also be perceived as having reasons for wishing to exert some influence over the decision.
An attempt by Mr Debnam to improperly influence [the] decision not to prosecute, had such occurred, could be corrupt conduct under the ICAC Act 1988.
The Crown Solicitor goes on to state:
Any attempt to influence Mr Smith to change the decision and prosecute, had such occurred, might also have been capable of constituting the offence of perverting the course of justice under s. 319 of the Crimes Act.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.
Mr BOB DEBUS: On Senator Heffernan the Crown Solicitor advises as follows:
It is not appropriate for a public office holder who has a known interest in a particular issue and a public profile in relation to that issue and is a senior member of a party for which another public office holder seeks preselection, to directly contact that other public office holder, in circumstances where the second public office holder is required to make an independent decision on a matter that is related to, or might be perceived as being related to, that issue.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr BOB DEBUS: It is sober advice but its conclusions, particularly on the matter of the processes of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], would appear to be tempered by the fact that we do not know with any precision what occurred in these telephone conversations. The Crown Solicitor elsewhere states:
In my opinion, no evidence has been provided to me which indicates that conduct of Mr Smith, Mr Debnam or Senator Heffernan concerns or may concern corrupt conduct so as to justify a referral to the ICAC.
No-one knows what was said. We only know that calls were made by senior Liberal Party members of Parliament who should know better. We need to have full disclosure about these conversations.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr Peter Debnam: This will not protect you from leaking that DPP advice.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Police will resume his seat. The Attorney General has the call.
Mr BOB DEBUS: As I have said, nobody knows what was said. We need to have full disclosure about those conversations. I call on the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Heffernan to explain in full what they said. When the detail of those conversations is known, the matter may well be referred to ICAC for a full arm's- length investigation. For the sake of the integrity of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions I call on 1964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Heffernan and Mr Smith to provide detailed accounts of those discussions.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will come to order.
Mr BOB DEBUS: Another matter canvassed by the Crown Solicitor was whether there had been any breach of the DPP's guidelines or code of conduct by Mr Smith.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order.
Mr BOB DEBUS: The Crown solicitor advises:
I consider that Greg Smith ... failed to comply with the Code if he failed to terminate the telephone conversations with Mr Debnam or Senator Heffernan as soon as the subject matter became apparent. The disciplinary consequences, if any, for any failure to comply with the Code is a matter for the DPP. The telephone contact between Mr Debnam and Mr Smith concerning [the accused] occurred in the context of the current and possible future relationship between them ... It seems to me to be the very sort of communication contemplated by the Code as having a tendency to compromise a decision by leading people to speculate whether the decision ultimately made was impartial, reasonable, fair, and appropriate to all the circumstances relating to the case of [the accused].
On the phone call by Senator Heffernan the Crown Solicitor observed:
If the media reports are correct, Senator Heffernan's intention on calling on Mr Smith was clear. He wished to agitate for the reinstatement of the charges against [the accused].
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time. I exhort all members to stop interjecting.
Mr BOB DEBUS: The Crown Solicitor stated:
In these circumstances, I consider that Mr Smith breached the Code in relation to the communication with Senator Heffernan if he failed to promptly terminate the conversation as soon as the subject matter became apparent.
I advise the House that the Crown Solicitor's advice has been sent to Mr Cowdery for his review. The DPP needs to form his own opinion about what course of action is appropriate but he, like us, can only make a sensible decision if he is armed with the full facts about exactly what went on in these conversations. I do not and cannot prejudge any proceedings, whether they are internal processes at the Office of the DPP or external to that office.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order for the second time.
Mr BOB DEBUS: However, I restate the point that there is an abundant conflict of interest in Mr Smith continuing to occupy one of the most senior prosecutorial positions in the State—second in charge, according to Mr Smith's preselection material—and being a candidate for political office. The code of conduct for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which I shall shortly seek to table, together with the Crown Solicitor's advice, makes the conflict of interest point with considerable clarity. There are several relevant provisions, but the most pertinent is clause 21, which states:
Conflicts of interest may arise for example where … party political, social or community membership or activities may conflict with an officer's public duty …
By leave I table the advice of the Crown Solicitor entitled "Potential Consequences of Contacts with Acting DPP about Proceedings in Relation to Mr. H. A. Anning", dated 5 September 2006 and the code of conduct of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated May 2005.
ELECTRICITY PRICES
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy. In view of the Minister's confession today that Labor plans to increase electricity prices next July, after the election, and given the Hon. Eric Roozendaal's recent announcement that the Government is using taxpayers' money to delay road changes associated with the Lane Cove Tunnel, what other bad news is he holding back until after the March State election? 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1965
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: I am glad that an Opposition member has asked a question about the energy industry as it gives me the opportunity to discuss a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. In May this year the Leader of the Opposition displayed his complete lack of knowledge when it comes to this very important industry. He said:
Electricity substations are failing and there is no plan for the increased generation capacity our community needs now and into the future.
This ridiculous claim was greeted with raised eyebrows from industry experts in the audience. In fact, the Government, through its electricity distributors and transmission companies, is investing a record $9.1 billion in upgrading and expanding the State's electricity network over the next four years. That includes $2.3 billion this financial year alone. The Leader of the Opposition further declared—
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister for Energy made it clear at the beginning of his answer that he did not intend to answer the question. The question was about Labor slugging New South Wales families more for their power bills.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals asked a question of the Minister. He cannot now seek to answer the question as well. The Minister has the call.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Typically, the Leader of the Opposition always goes that one step too far. He continued:
NSW is running out of electricity.
Yet again, the Leader of the Opposition failed to check his facts.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: If we are running out of electricity, let us consider what happened last summer.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: I would like the Minister to face the camera because we want this on camera.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: Last summer was the State's hottest on record and Sydney's third warmest since records began. There was record demand for electricity yet the system continued to maintain supply. Even under those very hot conditions New South Wales had access to enough generation to meet all its needs.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will stop calling out. He has more than his fair share of opportunities to make statements to the House. The Minister has the call.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: There was record demand for electricity last summer and the system coped extremely well. In this financial year alone we are spending $2.3 billion on enhancing the State's electricity infrastructure. Our electricity supply is already world class, with a reliability level of more than 99 per cent, and we have more plans for the future. A new gas-fired power station at Tallawarra will add 400 megawatts of generation capacity to New South Wales in 2008, followed by another 600 megawatts from Munmorah. New South Wales enjoys the second lowest retail prices in Australia for residential and business sectors.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order—
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: I am answering your question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals has a point of order.
Mr Andrew Stoner: My point of order relates to Standing Order 138. The Minister should sit while I take my point of order. 1966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will decide what happens in this Chamber. The Leader of The Nationals will state his point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will state his point of order.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Standing Order 138 provides that an answer shall be relevant to the question asked. The Minister has come nowhere near outlining his plan to increase electricity prices. That is what the question was about and that is what the people want to hear about.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the Minister refer specifically to electricity prices. The Minister has the call.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: The only question the Opposition needs to answer is how it is going to fund its $20 billion black hole. What taxes will the Opposition increase to fund its $20 billion black hole?
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 105, which indicates clearly that when a point of order is taken the person who is speaking shall be seated. Mr Speaker, you have maintained in the Chamber today that you will say when a member should resume his seat. Yet Standing Order 105 says that the speaker upon whom a point of order is taken must sit. I ask you to apply the standing orders with some equity in this place.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: That was a big hit. New South Wales enjoys the second lowest retail prices in Australia for residential and business sectors. New South Wales prices are amongst the lowest in the world, with the 2003-04 average residential price of 11.4¢ per kilowatt hour, compared with 18.6¢ in the United States of America, 19.1¢ in New Zealand, 22.6¢ in the United Kingdom, 32.5¢ in Germany and 36.3¢ in Japan. We have among the lowest prices in the world. In the 10 years to 2004 real electricity prices in New South Wales have fallen by 23 per cent for business and 8 per cent for residential. Prices have been going down under this Government for the past 10 years. The responsibility for determining regulated retail and distribution prices for electricity in New South Wales rests with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, not the Government.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: This independent regulator is now conducting one of its regular reviews into retail electricity prices. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will weigh up all the factors, including the need to protect consumers, when it makes its determination. As I have said, New South Wales families already enjoy among the lowest electricity prices in the world. The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that New South Wales families and businesses continue to have a safe and reliable supply of electricity.
It is frustrating that the Opposition has paid so little attention to this important issue, which was spelt out in the State Infrastructure Strategy. Once again, the Opposition has failed to check the facts. Last November the Premier announced the State's plans to expand electricity generation in New South Wales. The State Infrastructure Strategy detailed these plans. They were detailed publicly but the Opposition is too tied up in its internal brawls to take any interest in the issues that really matter to the families and business people of this State.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY INVESTIGATIONS
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. What is the Government's response to ongoing concerns about child pornography investigations?
Mr CARL SCULLY: As we learned yesterday, the Opposition has not been able to explain properly why the Liberal candidate for Epping gave Mr Power a heads-up before police were informed. I think when people make a mistake in life they should put up their hand. I have done it.
Mr Donald Page: You don't have enough hands. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1967
Mr CARL SCULLY: Yes, I have. I have said, "I made a mistake; I got it wrong." I thought that would be the Opposition's best defence. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would come into the Chamber and say, "Mr Smith got it wrong."
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: I would like to know why it took two days—
Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Police has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I thought, perhaps naively—some might say I have been doing that for too long—he might say, "Yes, sir, I got it wrong. He made a mistake, he should not have done it, let's move on." But no, he has made matters worse and compounded the problem. He has looked for every possible avenue of defence. The latest defence—there had been no acknowledgment of wrongdoing—is, "I was complying with the orders, instructions and directions of Nicholas Cowdery, the Director of Public Prosecutions". That sounds reasonable. He is off the hook and they all go back to their electorates feeling smug! What did Mr Smith say? He said:
The events surrounding Mr Patrick Power were carried out in a correct and proper way in accordance with instructions from the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery.
Mr Smith further says:
After discussions with Mr Cowdery, who was interstate at the time, I was asked to ring Mr Power in my capacity as Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the office.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say that Mr Smith had acted upon the directions of Mr Cowdery. It now appears that was not the case. Remember the defence yesterday? Who leaked it? It was not should he have done it or not done it? The Swamp Fox did not have the guts to admit in this House that he did it. We all know he did it.
Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: For a start, you did it and you are the person—
Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable member for Gosford have a point of order?
Mr Chris Hartcher: I do.
Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr Chris Hartcher: There are standing orders about members being referred to by their electorates, which you would be well aware of.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police will resume his seat.
Mr Chris Hartcher: You, Carl, are the one who is trying to run this—
Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr Chris Hartcher: The point of order I just gave to you.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. The Minister for Police will refer to the honourable member for Gosford by his proper title. The Minister has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Maybe he did, or maybe he did not, but he is enjoying this, isn't he? Here we have Mr Smith, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition all defending Mr Smith's actions by saying he only did as he was asked to; he was acting as the Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr Patrick— 1968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order goes to Standing Order 139, which, as you know I think, does not allow Ministers in their answers to debate the point. But if the Minister wants to debate the point, he might want to explain why on 9 July he praised the handling of this matter by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now clearly attempting to debate the matter. This is not a debate, it is question time.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The first defence was "Who leaked it?" I do not know how that was a defence, and who cares?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: They are still pushing the line, "Yes, I did it but someone told someone about it."
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I do not think the Opposition is really pushing the defence "I didn't do it because someone told somebody that I did it". That does not wash. The next defence was "I did it because Mr Cowdery told me to".
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Illawarra will come to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: In today's paper Mr Cowdery is quoted as saying:
By the time Mr Smith spoke to me I think he had already spoken to Mr Power.
That's it! The first defence was "Somebody told somebody about it". The second defence—"I did it because Mr Cowdery told me"—has gone. What did the Opposition do? It had its tactics meeting today and said "Well, the first two lines of defence have fallen. Now the Allies are approaching Berlin. What are we going to do? Well, let's wheel out 'Trash the cops'." The Leader of the Opposition went into a press conference and said, "It's all the fault of the police. If only they had expedited their investigations, all would not have been lost." That is the explanation.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: Everyone wants to know why two days—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?
Mr Peter Debnam: They want to know whether the Minister for Police leaked it or the Attorney General leaked it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has risen from his seat repeatedly to interrupt the flow of the proceedings without even attempting to call a point of order. I call him to order for the second time.
Mr CARL SCULLY: It was not me and it was not the Attorney, so who was it? Every time the Leader of the Opposition is in a spot of bother he wheels out the "Trash the Cops" strategy, a bizarre defence. Please, 'fess up. You did the wrong thing. Let's move on. The more the Leader of the Opposition tries to defend this indefensible action the worst it is for him. I am embarrassed for him. It is pathetic. I cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition attacked the police. I am proud of the actions of the police. Would honourable members like the full detail of what the police did following Mr Smith's phone call? 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1969
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the Chair.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Mr Speaker, would you like to hear the detail?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CARL SCULLY: On 4 July at 6.00 p.m. NSW Police received a phone call from Mr Smith advising that child pornography had been discovered on a computer used by Senior Crown Prosecutor Patrick Power. Mr Smith did not advise NSW Police at that time that Mr Power had been informed of the discovery. During the evening of 4 July it was arranged for officers from the Child Protection and Sex Crimes Squad to enter the premises of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] the following morning. On 5 July at 9.00 a.m. officers of that squad had commenced their inquiries at the DPP. I am advised that later in the day, following those inquiries, a search warrant was sought and obtained allowing police to seize computers and floppy discs for the purposes of that investigation. On 6 July following further investigations and inquiries—
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Why the delay?
Mr CARL SCULLY: There is no delay. This is outrageous. I cannot believe this. On 6 July during the afternoon—bear in mind 4 July at 6.00 p.m.—police arrested Mr Power at his premises. He was conveyed to the Sydney Police Centre and entered into custody. He was then returned to his premises, in the company of NSW Police and his legal representative, where another search warrant had been sought and obtained and was executed, with further floppy discs being seized. Mr Power was then returned to the Sydney Police Centre, where he was charged with child pornography offences. What is wrong with all that from the police perspective? I cannot believe the Opposition has the gall. Mr Smith contacted Mr Power before the police were told—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The explanation of the defence is that police did not investigate it quickly enough. Hello! What planet are Opposition members on? I am disgusted. This squad is one of the most highly regarded squads in Australian policing. On behalf of police I am offended. They have acted expeditiously and with dispatch and diligence. This is probably the best case I have seen in a long time. At 6.00 p.m. they were informed. At 9.00 a.m. they were in the office and in the afternoon they seized equipment. The next day Mr Power was brought into custody. A further search warrant was issued and more material seized and then Mr Power was charged with the offence. That is a good record.
The Leader of the Opposition went into the media room on the sixth floor of Parliament House and spent 20 minutes slagging the cops because they delayed the investigation. There are still questions that need to be answered. The Attorney General has raised some questions about the actions of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Henry Anning. I want to know what Bill Heffernan and the Leader of the Opposition said to Greg Smith in relation to Henry Anning?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: There are times in this place when the standing orders really must be applied.
Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Brad Hazzard: The standing order that relates to the sub judice rule. The Minister, in a fairly grubby effort, is recounting alleged facts that may go to the heart and essence of what will be tested in court in due course. This is a very serious matter.
Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member will get to the point of order.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Procedure Precedents, 53rd Parliament, at page 179, states:
The Speaker cautioned the member noting that he was unaware whether the matters being referred to by the member may come before a court—
In this case the Minister is aware— 1970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
and whether the member's comments would prejudice any court proceedings. The Speaker also noted that it had been the longstanding practice of the House to not accept the accuracy and veracity of media articles.
Which is what the Minister is asking us to do. It also says—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient at this time.
Mr Brad Hazzard: I ask you to hear one more sentence:
The member who raised the point of order noted that it is against the sub judice rule to canvass evidence that will be before the courts in the weeks ahead.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened intently to the point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened intently to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Wakehurst. The Minister was giving a response in relation to times of investigation by the police. I would have thought those are matters of public record, not matters that are in any way material to evidentiary material that may be placed before a court.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Is that your considered ruling?
Mr SPEAKER: Nor was the Minister referring to media releases. The Minister was referring to information, to which he no doubt has access as Minister for Police. That related to matters of police operation. The Minister has the call.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: There are matters that are going to be tested in court. Could I put to you quite simply that the time periods involved in exercising control over the computer will be absolutely critical to the outcomes of this hearing. Whether there were opportunities for interference, or no opportunities for interference, will be critical to the outcome of the hearing. The Minister has abused legal process, and I would ask you to direct him to back off this spurious, juvenile attack and recognise the value of the court proceedings.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. Earlier I said that the Minister was giving information in relation to police procedures and police operations.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
Mr Brad Hazzard: I will—but not because the Minister is telling me to do that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: We are entitled to know the substance of the conversations between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Smith and the substance—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Wakehurst interjects again, he will find himself outside the Chamber. I call him to order for the third time.
Mr CARL SCULLY: And we are entitled to know the substance of the conversations between Mr Heffernan and Mr Smith in respect of their desire to have a particular individual prosecuted when the DPP had decided not to. You have to draw a line, and we would like to know: Did they draw the line between candidate and prosecutor? This emphasises the point that there is a merging of roles here. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1971
Mr Peter Debnam: The Minister is not answering the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr CARL SCULLY: We are entitled to full disclosure. We need to know what pressure was brought to bear upon Mr Smith.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: I am happy to—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.
Mr Peter Debnam: I am happy to answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.
Mr Peter Debnam: He is asking me the question. I am happy to give him the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interrupting. The Minister for Police has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I would like the Leader of the Opposition to type up a statement and give us, word for word, what he is alleged to have said to Mr Smith. I am particularly interested to know: Was there any discussion about preselection votes being wrapped up in return for prosecuting this particular individual? That is what we need to know.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: For the second day in a row, I ask the Minister to table the document he was quoting from.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT REVIEW
Mr ANDREW FRASER: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given his Government has admitted that the occupational health and safety legislation is flawed and unjust, why is he continuing to prosecute employers under those laws, and when will he introduce his promised legislative amendments?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the honourable member would know, there has been a process of consultation with stakeholders in this matter, and when that process is complete the Government will release the results of the consultation.
RAILWAY STATION INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on rail upgrades and related matters?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The budget delivered in June contained $3.4 billion for public transport, $2.4 billion of which was for rail—a huge capital increase of 40 per cent over the previous year. A huge number of projects are currently under way, with $105 million being spent on the Parramatta transport interchange, and $8.6 million on stage one of the Town Hall upgrade. I can advise the House that tenders were called yesterday for stage two of the Town Hall station upgrade, with work to start by the end of the year. The $361 million for the Chatswood railway station will result in movement on platform works over the coming months. Preliminary design and planning works are continuing for the North Sydney railway station upgrade, and $280,000 is being spent at Redfern railway station for undertaking of the detailed design stage. Also, Easy Access upgrades are being undertaken throughout the network, on which $385 million will have been spent by July this year so that 80 stations throughout the system will become independently wheelchair accessible.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation on the Government benches.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: And too much on the Opposition benches, Mr Speaker. 1972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: This year $49.2 million is being spent on Easy Access upgrades across the network. Tenders closed recently for upgrades of Belmore and Seven Hills, with contracts to be awarded in the near future, with a development application for the Easy Access upgrade at Bowral railway station as well.
While I am on the subject of transport developments, I can report to the House that the extremist freight train from the Epping preselection apparently is moving south into the beautiful seat of Ryde, which is close to my heart. Ryde is abuzz at the moment with discussions about potential Liberal candidates and whether any of the unsuccessful Epping candidates will resurface in the Ryde preselection over the coming weeks. I also hear the familiar name of Michael Photios being bandied about. Michael is a sensible, moderate man—
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order goes to the first standing order under chapter 10 of the standing orders, which relates to questions. The question related to transport expansions and related matters. I do not think preselections for Ryde are currently within the Transport portfolio. I seek a ruling on that matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I note the point of order taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and will listen further to the Minister before ruling on it. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he should rise in his seat to take a point of order and that he was nowhere near his seat at the time he rose to take the point of order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: What I am saying is relevant to rail, because I last saw Michael Photios on a railway station. That makes it highly relevant. The other name conjured up is of one Ivan Petch, the mayor of Ryde. I understand he has been a constant visitor to Liberal Party headquarters over recent weeks.
Mr George Souris: You started off well.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I saw that—Bill Gates. I now know what career I can go into after politics, a stand-in for Bill Gates. One name that will be missing from the Ryde preselection is that of Pru Goward. As we know, the honourable member for Southern Highlands is being unceremoniously dumped to make way for Pru Goward.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I raise the same point of order. A brief reference to running into Michael Photios at a railway station, however amusing, does not make this a matter related to the Transport portfolio or to the question asked.
Mr Carl Scully: To the point of order: He used to be shadow Minister for Transport.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will be mindful of the points of order that have been raised.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: A railway line goes through the Southern Highlands. It is entirely relevant. All of this raises some real questions for the Leader of The Nationals. As the honourable member for Monaro said yesterday in the House, we have not had an answer to important questions. Is the Leader of The Nationals incompetent, ineffective or just plain irrelevant when it comes to politics in New South Wales? Given that he has been rolled by the Liberal Party over this new seat—
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I draw your attention again to Standing Order 135, and I might pose this question: Are you irrelevant, ineffective or incompetent when it comes to upholding standing orders?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: On what basis do you allow this question to proceed when it clearly does not fall within Standing Order 135?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Could you advise the House under what standing order this question can continue? It is a very simple question. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1973
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Barry O'Farrell: I am sure that the Independents would like to know under what standing order this question could continue.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: I ask for the third time: Can you please advise which standing order?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have extended a great deal of latitude to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his repeated attempts to disrupt the proceedings of the House. He is now on three calls to order. If he interrupts the proceeding again he will find him outside the Chamber. The Minister for Transport has the call.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: In Goulburn The Nationals have been ignored. If the new seat of Goulburn is not a seat for The Nationals, what seat in New South Wales is safe? This comes hot on the heels of news that a new Liberal Party branch will be created in Bathurst. How long will it take before the Liberals supplant The Nationals in Bathurst as well? Apparently, this step-by-step destruction of The Nationals in New South Wales has led the Leader of The Nationals to try out for a new job.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: You allowed the Minister to continue for some time, even though it was not an answer to the question. He has not been responsive in relation to what he was asked in relation to railways.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order. I have extended considerable latitude to the Minister in relation to the leave of the question. I ask him to return to the main point of the question or to complete his response.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am just finishing. The Nationals have given up Lachlan without a fight. They has lost the loyal city of Goulburn, and they will soon be challenged by the Liberal Party in Bathurst.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has completed his response.
PORT MACQUARIE HOSPITAL UPGRADE
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will he outline the time frame for completion of work associated with the Port Macquarie Hospital upgrade as contained in the hospital master plan released last week?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member—
Mr George Souris: Don't worry about answering it.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will worry about answering it, because it is a very important question. Port Macquarie Hospital has a special role in the New South Wales public health system, and we will worry about it. The Coalition sold it, gave it away and effectively had taxpayers pay for it twice over. It was a failed experiment in privatisation, which is back on the agenda courtesy of Tony Abbott and the State Opposition.
Mr Andrew Stoner: You're a nasty little socialist.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: And the Leader of The Nationals is on the record as saying that last year's buyback of Port Macquarie Hospital was a waste of money. He should come clean on the agenda to privatise our public hospitals. His colleague who is sitting a few metres away from him is also on the record as saying, "What a good way to manage public hospitals, privatise them."
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We have not forgotten the—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I called the honourable member for North Shore to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We have not forgotten— 1974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the second time.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wentworthville to order.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Do you support Tony Abbott?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Those opposite support Tony Abbott because when the Government bought back Macquarie Hospital the Leader of The Nationals criticised the decision to bring it back into the public system. What else would he say to Tony Abbott? He has already signed the secret deal to privatise our public hospitals. It is not a question of if those opposite will privatise them. They will privatise them, but they will not release the secret agenda showing which ones they are. We have not forgotten the hospitals the Coalition privatised when it was last in government.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bega will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals is on record as saying that buying it back after the failed experiment, bringing it back into the public system, was a waste of money.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals was speaking about a hospital that services his electorate. Wauchope and Kempsey hospitals are serviced by Port Macquarie Hospital. He cannot welcome—
Mr Andrew Stoner: You're just a socialist.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He says it is a socialist decision to buy it back. He has an opportunity to condemn what Tony Abbott proposed a week ago, but he supports it, which confirms again that it is part of his agenda. Who knows? The Coalition might want to re-privatise Port Macquarie Hospital. It might be one of the hospitals on the list.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will stop calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the honourable member for Port Macquarie pointed out, last week the Minister for Health released the blueprint for future service development at Port Macquarie Hospital, which is confirmation that the Government is planning, in a sensible and a reasonable way, the future development of infrastructure and services at Port Macquarie Hospital. As he has correctly pointed out since that release, the master plan focused on priorities for the hospital.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to order.
Mr Andrew Stoner: I refer to Standing Order 140, which refers to questions without notice. Clearly the question has been given with notice.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order. He will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.
[Interruption] 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1975
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Port Macquarie will come to order. The Premier has the call.
[Interruption]
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: At least the honourable member for Port Macquarie supports his local hospital and stands committed to his hospital delivering first-rate services. He is committed to the future development of services and infrastructure at the hospital and believes in the staff and the quality of care they provide. As the parliamentary representative, he uses his position to support the staff and the hospital, which is more than can be said for the Leader of The Nationals, whose electorate adjoins Port Macquarie and is also served by the hospital. The Leader of The Nationals has never once uttered a word of support for the hospital. He has only ever criticised the Government for investing public funds in the hospital. Yes, we stand condemned for that!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order for the second time.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government stands condemned for investing taxpayers' dollars in public assets, in contrast to the Leader of The Nationals' lack of support for the hospital.
[Interruption]
The Leader of The Nationals says the Government made that investment to further its socialist causes. To his mind, believing in public hospitals, believing in health care being a right, not a privilege, believing in universal health care, and working for universal access to health care and public hospitals means that the Government deserves to be derided as socialist. All members on the Government side of the House plead guilty!
Mr Andrew Stoner: You are all a pack of socialists.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He says that we are all a pack of socialists. As the Auditor-General so kindly pointed out, was it not the Coalition that wasted money by privatising the hospital—action that subsequently led to paying for the hospital twice over? According to the Leader of The Nationals, that was a wise investment, not a waste of money. He thinks that buying back the hospital for a third of its sale price was a good investment in spite of sales usually involving a profit. According to the Auditor-General, the Government has had to pay for the hospital twice because the Coalition government virtually gave it away. The New South Wales taxpayers had to buy back the hospital at a cost of $80 million, but the Leader of The Nationals describes that as a waste of money. If ever there was confirmation of the Coalition's agenda, that is it.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Not one extra bed, not one extra patient.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will deal with beds shortly.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: And a huge waiting list.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I provide the House with an update on the progress of the hospital. Since it was brought back into the public system—the system the Leader of The Nationals, supported by the shadow Minister for Health, does not support—an additional 18 beds have been opened. Since the honourable member for North Shore has mentioned waiting lists, I point out that the waiting list has been almost halved. In addition, the long-wait list has dramatically reduced. The Minister assisting the Minister for Health has announced a $2.4 million refurbishment and expansion of the mental health unit so that involuntary patients can be treated at Port Macquarie Base Hospital, which is something that would not have happened when the hospital was part of the private hospitals system. Moreover, $400,000 has been provided to boost staffing for the Port Macquarie Community Mental Health team. 1976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Further examples of the Government's commitment to the development of infrastructure and services at the Port Macquarie Base Hospital are the delivery earlier this year of high dependency beds and the latest patient monitoring technology for the emergency department, the intensive care unit and the coronary care unit. That also would not have happened if the hospital had remained a private hospital under the Coalition. The privatisation of that hospital is an example of the Coalition's policy agenda. Should the Coalition be elected in 2007, the hallmark of its policies will be its co-operation with the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, in privatising more public hospitals.
In addition to focusing on emergency department services and intensive care services, the master plan's priorities include meeting the increasing demand by patients for surgical and medical treatment and the increasing demand for services for acute care for the aged and mental health patients. The master plan also provides opportunities for the future co-location of community health and ambulatory health services at the hospital site. Allied to that is a traffic study.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Boring!
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals states on the public record that the Port Macquarie Base Hospital is boring and that the future of the hospital is boring. I thank him for his confirmation that he is in bed with the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, on expanding the privatisation of New South Wales hospitals. Once again the Leader of The Nationals confirms that he has no commitment to the future of the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. By his silence he also indicates his intention to revisit his policy of re-privatising the hospital at some time in the future.
RETIREMENT VILLAGES LEGISLATION
Mr KEVIN GREENE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. What is the latest information on reforms to the Retirement Villages Act and related issues?
Ms DIANE BEAMER: I thank the honourable member for Georges River for his continuing interest in retirement villages and residents. The retirement villages industry is a vital and expanding sector of our State's housing industry. There are more than 750 villages and approximately 50,000 residents across the State. The villages provide communities for our ageing population. The Iemma Government has produced a package of significant reforms involving the Retirement Villages Act that represent a new direction for retirement villages in New South Wales.
The reforms will provide a new direction for residents with a secure future, free from added and unnecessary hardship and worry, as well as new directions for operators in the form of streamlined processes, clarity of budget responsibility, and the cutting of red tape. The Government is committed to bringing these reforms to the Parliament this year. In the company of many members of this House, I have visited many residents and listened to what they had to say. Each village overwhelmingly endorsed the Government's proposals. The enthusiasm of the residents is echoed by the industry. Kevin Ryan from the Retirement Villages Association Ltd Australia says that he is absolutely behind the changes, which will benefit residents and the industry. Paul Sadler of the Aged and Community Services Association says the reforms will help to achieve a vibrant retirement housing industry while protecting residents' interests.
One of the Iemma Government's major reforms will assist residents who enter villages under the so- called lease-loan arrangements. If an operator becomes insolvent, they will become secured creditors. This will prevent any repetition of the unfortunate situation at the former Woolcott Court Retirement Village in Wahroonga. Woolcott was placed under administration in 2001 after encountering serious financial problems. The Department of Fair Trading supported the administration and provision of services to residents. The company was deregistered, and the Supreme Court ordered the removal of the administrator in July this year. However, I instructed the Department of Fair Trading to maintain the services to residents who were affected by the collapse while those services were needed. The departmental staff helped residents to access offers of alternative accommodation. At the same time I sought legal advice on the status of residents' tenancy arrangements following the deregistration of the company.
The residents have been through a traumatic time. Through no fault of their own, their investment has been lost. But I inform the House that legal advice I sought has brought some welcome reassurance. I am advised that seven of the nine remaining residents hold head leases that allow them to remain in their homes under the terms that were originally agreed to. I am also advised that any action taken to evict them would fail. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1977
Of the two residents holding subleases, I am advised that one has decided to move to another retirement village, and the other has made arrangements to stay in the village under a tenancy agreement—again, they are secure in their accommodation. In addition, the Department of Fair Trading has negotiated the provision of services to the residents at a lower cost than they were previously paying.
This has been a difficult and traumatic time for residents; and the situation has not been helped by the political grandstanding of the Leader of the Opposition. His press release of 25 July headed "Retirement Village Residents Face Eviction" stated there were "uncertain futures … while the roof is ripped away from these elderly residents". The Government's advice is that any action to remove them would fail; the Opposition's advice gave the elderly people an uncertain future. The Leader of the Opposition is using that language to heighten the atmosphere of fear and insecurity among vulnerable residents. They have no solutions; they just talk of evictions. Once again the Leader of the Opposition was wrong; he was out of touch.
I advise honourable members of another retirement village at which the Iemma Government has been quietly going about assisting residents. Lindfield Manor residents have been in dispute for several years with the operator, Milstern Retirement Services, over the financial management of the village. Residents were forced to pay additional charges of more than $70,000 to cover expenses incurred by the operator in 2003-04. The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal ordered that a limit be placed on that expenditure and that a refund was due to residents.
Mrs Judy Hopwood: Point of order: The Minister is misleading the House in relation to Woolcott Court. There are eight residents there, not nine, so she does not know what she is talking about. And, Minister, you have passed the buck.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If the honourable member for Hornsby wants to make a statement to the House, there are proper ways of doing so. Interrupting a Minister's reply is not one of them.
Ms DIANE BEAMER: I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like to hear about outcomes for Lindfield Manor. The operator challenged the tribunal's order in the Supreme Court, and I intervened in the case on behalf of residents. I am pleased to advise that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Milstern Retirement Services, with costs, paving the way for a refund to the residents. The real winners are the residents, but there is not a word from the Leader of the Opposition about this. To be fair, there have been words about this from the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who worked with me on this matter, did not go to the media. We achieved a good outcome for those in Woolcott Court. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quietly supported the residents, and that support should be acknowledged.
Members on both sides of the House can work together; however, we all know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the rational one. I commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also for having the courage and decency to commend the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her move to the Sydney Chamber of Commerce—not a word from the Leader of the Opposition, just a decent word from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: With all due respect to Standing Order 135, the Leader of the Opposition put out a statement on the day the honourable member announced her resignation. Get it right, Diane.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a statement, there are proper ways of doing so. The Minister will address the Chair and continue with her reply.
Ms DIANE BEAMER: That is just another notch in David Clarke's belt. We had Brogden, Tink, Seaton, and shortly Humpherson and Pringle. This is in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition. There he is, making sure that residents live in fear at Woolcott when we have a good outcome for their future in a very serious circumstance.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hornsby will come to order.
Questions without notice concluded. 1978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Thursday 21 September 2006 at 10.00 a.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Dissent Motion: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit at 7.30 p.m. the consideration of a motion of dissent from Mr Speaker's ruling [General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 136] standing in the name of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai.
CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
Ground Water Structural Adjustment Taxation
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [3.54 p.m.]: My motion on irrigation industry taxation is urgent because this issue has been going on for far too long, more than four years too long. This matter is urgent because the Federal Government is about to make a decision, which I believe will be a good decision in favour of the people involved in the irrigation industry of New South Wales. This matter is urgent because for far too long this House has not been given a chance to consider just how useless The Nationals have been in this and other issues. That once great party was once called the Country Party; it is now called the hexadactyl party.
This matter is urgent because, quite frankly, it is an embarrassment for me to hear about the support of the extremely lazy member for Murrumbidgee in this matter, who has been completely unable to affect any decision at the Federal level, to the extent that young families come to my office at Hay because they are most concerned. They are late developers and they want proper compensation so they can afford to pay off their bank loans. Other young people, also late developers, come to see me in the shire chambers at Hillston, again vexatiously concerned because they borrowed money as late developers, giving water as their guarantee. However, under the national water initiative we then proceeded to take water from them. But we had an agreement: one-third for irrigators, one-third for New South Wales, and one-third for the Commonwealth.
However, we never agreed that that compensation should be taxed. Later today I will demonstrate the complete nonsense in this matter by the Federal Nationals, who regard compensation as a form of income support. Compensation always has been, and always should be, provided in the same way it was provided to the dairy industry: without any taxation. We want people to be properly compensated for the loss of their water. It is about time that the Federal Government delivered, as the New South Wales Government has delivered in complete contradistinction. This is what makes my motion urgent. We have delivered on the red gum issue, and to a very significant extent on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal issue with respect to water prices in the Murray Valley. We did that because these issues were within the province of this Parliament.
However, taxation is a Federal issue. It was never accepted by this Parliament, or by the former Minister, Craig Knowles, or by the current Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, that compensation should be taxed. It has never been said that the $55 million compensation from this Parliament or the $55 million from the Commonwealth Parliament should be taxed. I am more than confident that the Federal parties, including the Liberal Party, will move to exempt this matter from taxation. But we have seen no help whatsoever in this matter from the New South Wales Nationals—the rudderless, leaderless, lazy lot that they are. There is nothing there, no assistance, no representation. When the shadow Minister for Natural Resources, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, said that compensation should be taxed, guess what? Nobody was listening.
It was left to Country Labor to make all the representations, and we did it with pride and we are getting there. It is fair to say that the announcement from New South Wales Farmers a couple of days ago that it will not be taxed was a little in front of the mark, because the Commonwealth has not made that announcement. Suffice it to say that I am comfortable it will happen. In summary, we need to debate this matter as a matter of urgency.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Why? 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1979
Mr PETER BLACK: It is of vital importance to a lot of young families, late developers in the lower Lachlan, the lower Murrumbidgee, who have borrowed squillions. In response to the interjection, putting down a bore can cost up to $300,000. People borrow money and use their water as security. When water is taken off late developers under the Commonwealth inspired national water initiative they ought be compensated, but that compensation should not be treated as income support. The matter is urgent, and I commend it to the House.
Community Protection
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [4.00 p.m.]: Nothing is more important for this House to debate today than Maddison Hall's appearance tomorrow before the parole authority. That is why I desire to move the following motion:
That this House condemns the Iemma Government for its continued failure to protect the community.
It must be remembered that this Government has form on this matter. The Attorney General stood in this House and said that when John Lewthwaite was released in 1999 he would be closely monitored, and that if he thought about crossing the line, even in the most trifling fashion, he would be back behind bars. But it took weeks of calling this Government to account before John Lewthwaite was put back behind bars. And it became apparent that there was no monitoring whatsoever of that paedophile in the community, and that nor was there monitoring of the 2,400 paedophiles in the community.
The Government had to admit that, even in the case of police, information is restricted to two officers for each police station. The first is the local area commander and the second is the crime manager. There is no monitoring. When an incident occurs those two people can check the facts on the computer. Tomorrow we are presented with another case—a matter that I raised today in this House—that is, that Maddison Hall is appearing before the parole authority asking for early release. She will be seeking parole to be set free in the community. I called on the Attorney General to tell the House exactly what measures he had taken to ensure that Maddison Hall stayed in gaol. Clearly, those measures are inadequate.
I called on the Attorney General to explain what new guarantees he could give members of the community that they would be safe if Maddison Hall were released from gaol. I do not think this Attorney General can give any more guarantees. He failed not only in relation to John Lewthwaite because he gave specific guarantees that were worthless; he has been involved or implicated in leaking to the media documents from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no respect for him as a senior legal officer in this State. What is happening with Maddison Hall and the parole hearing tomorrow? What does the report of the Parole Board state? Let me quote from that report, which states—
Mr Peter Black: Point of order: I clearly demonstrated why my matter was urgent and should be debated. The Leader of the Opposition is now debating his motion; he is not stating why his matter is more urgent than mine.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows, and is generally following, the dictum that he should give reasons why his motion should proceed.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: Mr Acting-Speaker, when you hear these words, you and even the honourable member for Murray-Darling will understand why this matter is urgent. This is what the Crown said at a parole hearing:
There are indicators that the Board has no doubt been aware of, which indicates that the offender may have a poor capacity to refrain from committing further violent offences once released into the community. Notably, the offender has been the subject of numerous allegations of sexual assaults since being housed in a women's gaol.
The first allegation dates from late 1999, where a female inmate alleged that she had been raped by the offender although these criminal precedents in respect of the matter were not available. Other allegations surfaced in late 2004 where two inmates alleged that they have been sexually assaulted by the offender. A third inmate alleged that she had witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour by the offender, and other inmates stated that they were forced into sexual intercourse while in a relationship with the offender. These allegations were especially serious as the offender at the time was HIV positive and also was aware that she was HIV positive. Although the allegations were not proven Dr Michael Giuffrida considers the allegations are consistent with his assessment of the offender. He says, "It is probably clear that I am of the opinion that Ms Hall represents a serious and ongoing risk of at least forming sexual relationships with other female inmates and that she is not above using coercion or threats to achieve that. There is a further risk that she is HIV Positive" ... 1980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
The Authority would be aware of the various assessments, risk assessments conducted on the offender. Dr Giuffrida considers that the offender has very significant risk factors present and rates her in a moderate to high risk scale. He considers that the offender suffers from a moderate risk of re-offending in a violent manner with a 58 per cent probability that she will re-offend within 10 years. In that context, your Honour, I would submit that the Authority might consider the safety of the community in the context of those risks.
The safety of the community is something that members of the Labor Party do not think about. There is no shortage of media reports of the relatives of Maddison Hall pleading with this Government to ensure that that person stays in gaol. If Government members want to deal with an urgent matter they should vote to debate this issue today.
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Murray- Darling be proceeded with—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Ms Allan Mr Greene Mr Pearce Mr Amery Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr Price Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McBride Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Ms Gadiel Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin
Noes, 35
Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Cansdell Mr McTaggart Mr Slack-Smith Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Maguire Mr Hazzard Mr Pringle Mr R. W. Turner
Pair
Ms D'Amore Mrs Hancock
Question resolved in the affirmative. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1981
GROUND WATER STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT TAXATION
Urgent Motion
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [ 4.15 p.m.]: I move:
That this House condemns the failure of the NSW National Party to stand up for regional and rural NSW by failing to seek relief from the Federal Government's taxation treatment of ground water entitlements and other matters.
The Achieving Sustainable Ground Water Entitlements Program is a joint program co-funded, as I said earlier, by the New South Wales and Australian governments. It aims to assist in minimising the impact of reductions in ground water entitlements on regional communities. The Minister for Natural Resources, and Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, has addressed this issue in the upper House. He said:
It was always agreed that the New South Wales Government would cover a third of the impact, the Commonwealth would cover a third and irrigators would meet the remaining third.
When these arrangements were made I served on the sub caucus of the Hon. Craig Knowles, the then Minister for Natural Resources. So I am familiar with the process that was both endured and tolerated. Remember that we waited four years after the famous handshake between John Anderson, the then Deputy Prime Minister, and Craig Knowles to get the $55 million required from the Commonwealth to match the funding put up by New South Wales. From the outset the irrigators flagged with John Anderson that there could be a problem if the payments were taxed. Indeed, in 2004 Craig Knowles wrote to the former Deputy Prime Minister requesting reconsideration of the Commonwealth Government's proposed tax treatment.
This is far from being a new issue. The fact is that the Coalition chose to deregulate the dairy industry and decided to treat the payments as taxable income also. As the Hon. Ian Macdonald said, the irrigators expressed their concerns from the outset of this scheme two years ago. The New South Wales Government has also done so time and time again. In February this year a letter from former Premier Bob Carr to the Prime Minister on this important issue made absolutely no reference to structural adjustment or how the payments should be treated. They were simply referred to as "financial assistance". The Minister has pointed out that the Federal Government and the Australian Government Solicitor drafted the agreement, not the New South Wales Government. But Minister Macdonald was not easily dissuaded and wrote to the Prime Minister; the Treasurer, Peter Costello; and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and said:
The purpose of the letter is to seek your urgent reconsideration of the proposed taxation of the payments to be made under the program to eligible licence holders for the reduction of their irrigation water assets.
I am advised that it is the Australian Government's intent to treat such payments as income despite the fact that the payments are clearly being made as a result of a loss in the value of their capital assets. Should such a proposal proceed, individual irrigators could lose up to 47% of their total payments in tax, depending on their current financial position.
There is nothing confusing about the letter; it is just another in a series of representations that Minister Macdonald has made regarding this matter. While neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer responded, the Assistant Treasurer did. He wrote:
Under the income tax law a grant received in relation to carrying on a business is assessable income. Therefore, where the financial assistance is provided by governments to industry, as is the case for this package, the payments will generally be treated as assessable income for tax purposes.
He went further and said:
The treatment of the assistance payments is ultimately a matter for determination by the Australian Taxation Office.
This has always been a Federal Government matter. New South Wales has consistently called upon the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—
[Quorum formed.]
As I indicated earlier when I established urgency we should take a long good look at what is happening to The Nationals and their failure time and time again to deliver for country Australia. I will show first what has been happening in Queensland and, second, in the Federal seat of Gwydir in New South Wales. In Queensland The Nationals have been nosediving. In the 1983 Queensland elections The Nationals polled 38.93 per cent and 1982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
the Liberal Party polled 14.88 per cent—The Nationals received more than twice as many votes. In 1986 under Joe Bjelke Peterson The Nationals polled 39.64 per cent and the Liberal Party 16.5 per cent.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I do not believe this is relevant to the motion.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I will listen more closely. The honourable member for Murray-Darling will continue.
Mr PETER BLACK: On 2 December 1989 the Australian Labor Party won in Queensland but The Nationals still outpolled the Liberal Party 24:21. In 1992, 23:20. In 1995—this is getting more interesting—The Nationals outpolled 26:22 so it was still in front. In June 1998 things started to go badly wrong—One Nation. The Nationals vote dropped to 15.17 per cent and the Liberal Party went past them to 16.09 per cent. In February 2001 The Nationals stagnated at 14.16 per cent—I do not know what Joe Bjelke was thinking at that time. On 7 February 2004 The Nationals got 16.96 per cent and the Liberal Party 18.5 per cent—the Liberal Party was in front. Then we have the wonderful result on 9 September 2006 when The Nationals vote was 17.64 per cent, the Liberal Party 20.17 per cent and the Labor Party, with a small swing of 0.03 per cent, managed to gain 60 seats, with only 16 to The Nationals. That demonstrates how pathetic The Nationals are.
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: Perhaps you could redirect the honourable member for Murray-Darling to the issue at hand, which is ground water entitlements.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I understand the point of order, but the honourable member for Burrinjuck is taking a narrow view of the motion, which is in two parts. She is referring to the second part and the honourable member for Murray-Darling is speaking to the first part.
Mr PETER BLACK: I stress how totally and absolutely useless The Nationals have become in Western New South Wales. The Federal Government has redistributed four seats going in Western New South Wales—Farrer, the Riverina, Parkes and Gwydir. Recently, the Federal Electoral Commissioner announced that he has taken the path of abolishing the seat of Gwydir because Western New South Wales is losing population faster than any other area in New South Wales. Simply put, The Nationals have lost one of their key seats by abolition because they have failed to look after the bush, to maintain infrastructure and to maintain their vote. [Time expired.]
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.25 p.m.]: It is with interest that I speak on the motion moved by the honourable member for Murray-Darling. I am surprised that he has moved a motion which in Western New South Wales has caused the Australian Labor Party such difficulty and grief because of the very poor way in which it has managed the entitlement reduction program. I refer honourable members to a few years ago when the entitlement reduction program was started by the Labor Party in New South Wales and to the comments of the honourable member for Mount Druitt when he was speaking from the back of a truck in Gunnedah in a public rally about an issue that was very hot in the Namoi Valley. The honourable member for Mount Druitt said quite emphatically, "There will be no money paid in compensation for reduced entitlements for ground water." He said emphatically that no money would be offered.
Fortunately for irrigators and ground water users in New South Wales John Anderson of The Nationals and the Federal Coalition Government intervened and offered $55 million on condition that the State also agree to kick in $55 million. I make it clear that the New South Wales Labor Party offered no money to ground water users until the Federal Government stepped in. It realised the pain that ground water users were going to suffer, and offered $55 million and brought the State Government kicking and screaming to the table and embarrassed it into matching the $55 million. The New South Wales Government keeps telling people, and the honourable member for Murray-Darling repeated it today, that irrigators agreed to contribute one-third, but that is not true. Public statements and press releases from the honourable member for Mount Druitt and from Craig Knowles since have wrongly stated that irrigators agreed to contribute one-third. Why would they want to a contribute one-third to their own demise?
In relation to how the Commonwealth is going to tax ground water structural adjustment payments, as the Opposition spokesman on Natural Resources I issued a press release. I urged the Commonwealth not to tax the compensation payments as income but to tax them as compensation for a lost asset, which they are. The Prime Minister agreed with the arguments put forward by me, irrigators, the Irrigators Council, John Anderson and everybody who lobbied the Federal Government. I refer to an answer of the Prime Minister on 6 September 2006 in the House of Representatives to a question without notice: 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1983
The New South Wales Government thus far have represented to us [the Commonwealth] that they want the [structural adjustment] payment treated as income …
Mr Gerard Martin: Rubbish!
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I am quoting the Prime Minister, who, we could assume, would be better briefed than the honourable member for Bathurst and I are. I quote the Prime Minister:
The New South Wales Government thus far have represented to us that they want the payment treated as income because, apparently, they are fearful of a precedent being established whereby such payments are seen as truly they are, and that is as compensation for the withdrawal of a previously conferred water right. It is my view that these payments are in the nature of compensation for the withdrawal of the previously conferred water right. I myself do not believe that you can regard these payments as being in the character of income. I do not believe that. So, in that sense, the law is not wrong. What the law says at the present moment is that if you get a payment which is in the nature of income then it is assessable but that if you get a payment which is in the nature of compensation for a capital loss then it is treated under the capital gains tax provisions of the law.
The Prime Minister goes on in that same answer to say:
I think factually that what has happened here is that the New South Wales government have in reality compensated irrigators for the withdrawal of their water entitlements, and we have provided some top-up funding, but they are wanting to treat the payment as income lest it be regarded as some kind of precedent for the future.
Essentially, the Prime Minister is saying that the ball is in the court of the State Government. If this Government wants to nominate that these structural adjustment payments are compensation, rather than what they have been calling them, structural adjustment, or something else, then the Australian Taxation Office will not treat it as income. But while ever the New South Wales Government characterises those payments as it has, they will have to be treated as income. So the New South Wales Government can solve this problem quickly and easily, and I call on it to do so.
Let us talk about water and water prices. Some people have lost pretty well 90 per cent of their ground water entitlements. What do they get for that now from the New South Wales Government? The answer is an increase in fixed charges levied by State Water and increased charges imposed by the Department of Natural Resources—with no consideration given to the fact that quite a few ground water users have had their asset completely decimated. Many of them are in the electorate of the honourable member for Murray-Darling and many are in my electorate and in the Tamworth electorate. I believe the honourable member for Tamworth went to the New South Wales Government to try to get a better deal on water pricing for river irrigators and ground water users. He failed to get any victory from the New South Wales Labor Government.
People in the Peel Valley and in the Namoi are really being hammered because of increased water prices. The honourable member for Tamworth could not get any positive results on this issue because the Labor Government in New South Wales completely ignores him. He took a few irrigators with him and had a go at trying to get this Labor Government to do something about those costs, but the Government totally ignored him. In the same way, it has ignored the honourable member for Murray-Darling. The only person the Government does not ignore is Michael Costa, because he is desperate for cash. Nor does the Government ignore the Premier when he says, "We have a political crisis on our hands because the economy and the budget are going pear- shaped, and we need as much money as we can get."
The Government thinks, "Irrigators are suckers and soft targets, so let's hike the price of water for those users." I repeat, the New South Wales Labor Government is totally in control on this issue. It could completely reject IPART's recommendations right now. When the honourable member for Murray-Darling speaks in reply I call on him to say that the New South Wales Government will reject the IPART recommendations for price increases for both ground water and river water users. He will have the opportunity in about 20 minutes to do exactly that.
What does the Federal Labor Party have planned for irrigators? The cap was introduced ten years ago, and now there are cuts to ground water. The Federal Labor Party—God forbid it should ever be elected to government in Australia—will put an additional 1,500 gigalitres of water down the Murray. That would absolutely devastate irrigation communities. It will devastate not only the farmers but the communities. Towns such as Barham, Deniliquin, Finley and Wentworth on the New South Wales side, and on the Victorian side towns such as Mildura and Shepparton would be absolutely decimated. It is disgraceful and disgusting that any Labor Party member of this Parliament, faced with the facts, could stand in this place today and say they have any interest in the rights of irrigators or in the communities that rely on those irrigators, or the jobs that rely on irrigation. We know what Federal Labor did with ground water and with the cap, we know what it is now 1984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
proposing to do with price increases, and we know what Federal Labor proposes to do if, God forbid, it is ever elected to government. Labor tried another stunt the other day in Deniliquin. It had a State Plan forum.
Mr Steve Whan: If you were doing your job, you would have been there. Were you there?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: No, I was not there. I was invited to attend, but the invitation said that I was not allowed to speak. So what is the point of attending? What did the Deniliquin Pastoral Times say about the State Plan meeting? The editorial said:
The most glaring shortcoming in the plan was the lack of attention given to rural and regional New South Wales.
This was made clear at the forums, although it should have come as no surprise to anyone who has had any involvement in state politics over the past decade.
But will anything be done about it?
After the forums, there was a concerning level of scepticism and a general view that the process had probably been a waste of time.
The NSW Government has no-one to blame but itself for this attitude.
That was the response of the people in Deniliquin to the Government's proposal. [Time expired.]
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.35 p.m.]: Firstly, I would refute what was said by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee in relation to the New South Wales Government's policy on this issue. He was completely and utterly wrong. I am quite prepared to table documents I have here from Doug Miell, Chief Executive of the New South Wales Irrigators Council, and documents of discussions between John Anderson and Craig Knowles at the time. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee is either ignorant or deliberately misled the House. In response to issues raised by the Chief Executive of the New South Wales Irrigators Council about ground water reforms I would make three points. On the basis of the three-way partnership, he said:
This proposal relies on the Commonwealth Government contributing matching funds of $55 million.
We know how long that took.
The proposal is based on the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments each contributing up to one-third of the cost of adjustment and licence holders sharing the cost of adjustment. Without the Commonwealth Government's contribution, financial assistance will be severely restricted and the approach to the entitlement reduction will likely revert to those in the current gazetted water sharing plans.
The establishment of the Groundwater Adjustment Committee will ensure the continuation of the three-way partnership throughout the process, as representatives from each of the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments and groundwater users are represented to this Committee, which has been established to facilitate the implementation of this proposal.
It then talks about the industry's 33 per cent contribution. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee read what the Prime Minister reputedly answered in the Commonwealth Parliament on 6 September. That is wrong from the New South Wales Government's perspective. I do not know who is advising John Howard, but what he said is wrong. The honourable member asked what the New South Wales Government is doing about these water charges and watering sharing plans. We are reacting to the national water initiative, which was the brainchild of John Anderson, who up and ran away, and in the end retired.
This State is facing financial penalties, and has had to argue against those all along the way during this process. We have been blackmailed over the cost of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. So all the way along the New South Wales Government has kept the interests of the irrigators at heart while it has been trying to comply with the national water initiative, on which, through successive Ministers, we have been leading the debate. It is evident that The Nationals are running scared on this issue. In February this year State Minister Ian Macdonald, after getting nowhere with his repeated calls for a revision of the proposed taxation treatment, met with the Federal Parliamentary Secretary on matters relating to water, Malcolm Turnbull, who told Minister Macdonald:
The Prime Minister has spoken on this issue. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1985
Minister Macdonald said that Malcolm Turnbull did not say that it was a matter of phrasing his, Macdonald's, question differently. He just said, "That's it." Not easily dissuaded by Mr Turnbull, Minister Macdonald wrote to the Prime Minister, to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello and to the Parliamentary Secretary Malcolm Turnbull in the following terms:
The purpose of this letter is to seek your urgent reconsideration of the proposed taxation of the payment to be made under the program to eligible licence holders for a reduction of their irrigation water assets.
How could the State Minister put his case more strongly to the Federal Government? What I read onto Hansard brands the honourable member for Murrumbidgee a liar. He is either ignorant or he has deliberately misled the House. Minister Macdonald, the New South Wales Minister for Natural Resources, has carriage of the matter. What I read onto the record is exactly what transpired in his conversations and correspondence with the Federal Government, including the Prime Minister. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has a reputation for being a lazy shadow Minister. I do not know whether it is because he has not done his homework or whether he is deliberately misleading the House, but he is 100 per cent wrong.
The Federal Government is responsible for how payments are judged from a taxation point of view. The Labor Government in New South Wales has taken the lead, but the Coalition has not taken up the cudgels with its Federal Coalition partners in Canberra. It has been mute. As the honourable member for Murray-Darling eloquently pointed out, and as statistics show, the popularity of The Nationals is dropping. Come March next year it will not have party status in this Chamber. The party will be irrelevant. That is because of The Nationals' ignorance and their lack of representation on these sorts of matters— [Time expired.]
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [4.40 p.m.]: Last week I was in Cowra for three days talking with tourism operators and attending to other matters relating to my shadow portfolio. I met with several irrigators who are extremely concerned about the effect of this entrenched drought. The worst pessimists are now predicting that it will continue for many years, which is something we certainly do not want. The Labor Government in this State stands condemned for its ongoing refusal to waive the 2004-05 fixed water charges imposed on irrigators in that part of New South Wales. From what I have seen and from discussions I have had with local irrigators in the Cowra area, the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald—or, as they call him, the Minister against primary industries—and the Treasurer are very good at offering pathetic excuses to defend fixed water charges.
There is absolutely no escaping the fact that Lachlan Valley irrigators are being slugged $9.94 a megalitre by the Government, but they are receiving absolutely nothing in return, not a drop of water. The charge applies whether they are active irrigators, dozer irrigators or sleeper irrigators. Everyone has to pay it. Irrigators are paying the State Government for a service that it cannot provide. It is morally wrong. Irrigators who face thousands of dollars worth of charges for an undelivered service have every right to be angry with the Government. I fully support their complaints. Over the past 50 years irrigators have worked under an established business framework of paying for water they use under their licence allocation. But in the current environment the Government cannot provide water. Consequently, irrigators cannot generate income, which is seriously affecting the economies of many country towns.
Small business people in the Cowra area and in other irrigation area towns are very concerned about the drought and the charge thrust upon irrigators for a product they cannot access. It is like going to a service station and being charged at the bowser for petrol that cannot be delivered. It is totally unfair. Irrigators around this State are up in arms about what the State Labor Government is doing to them. The Government is being totally unprofessional. The charge is anti-agriculture, as I have said, and anti-environment as far as the broader community is concerned. The Government has a moral obligation and a responsibility to recognise that it must share the loss experienced by irrigators. The Government must accept that it cannot deliver the water and, therefore, it should shoulder the cost and share the pain experienced by local communities and the irrigation industry in particular in the unprecedented circumstances of the worst drought since records were kept at the turn of last century. The financial impact of the Government's professional ignorance and its totally cavalier attitude has been enormous.
The State Labor Government's negativity and its failure to recognise the plight of irrigators has totally destroyed the confidence of, and its business relationship with, farmers and irrigators throughout the Lachlan Valley. It is interesting to note that my colleague the honourable member for Lachlan tried to organise members from across the range of political parties in the State, including the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the Hon. Tony Catanzariti, to join a bipartisan deputation to the Iemma Government about waiving these 2004- 05 fixed water charges imposed on Lachlan Valley irrigators. I am told that the honourable member for Murray- 1986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Darling did not show up. The honourable member for Orange, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee and various other people attended, but when it came to organising a deputation about waiving the standard fee that applies to all irrigators regardless of whether they get the water—remembering that at the moment they cannot—it was a no show. Money is dreadfully tight in rural New South Wales and these irrigators definitely need assistance. [Time expired.]
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.45 p.m.]: I am pleased to participate in this debate, especially after the eloquent and convincing arguments from the honourable member for Murray- Darling and the honourable member for Bathurst. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Burrinjuck and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee did not speak to the motion, which seeks to condemn the failure of The Nationals in New South Wales to stand up for regional and rural New South Wales and their failure to seek relief from the Federal Government's taxation of ground water entitlements and other matters. That is the focus of the motion.
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House. The motion says "other matters", and that is what we were addressing as part of our contribution.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Kiama may continue.
Mr MATT BROWN: The honourable member's comments show that not only are The Nationals not sticking up for country New South Wales, but its members also do not know the standing orders of the House. The Achievable Sustainable Ground Water Entitlements Program is a joint program co-founded by the New South Wales and Australian governments. It is designed to minimise the impact of reductions in ground water entitlements on regional communities. It dates back to October 2003 when John Anderson, the former Deputy Prime Minister, former Minister for Natural Resources Craig Knowles and a group of farmers were brought together around the kitchen table of the Mayor of Gunnedah, Gae Swain. It was agreed that the New South Wales Government would defer the implementation of ground water sharing plans for a range of areas until 1 July 2006 to give all of us time to do the necessary work.
The key areas affected included the upper and lower Namoi, lower Gwydir, lower Macquarie, lower Lachlan and lower Murrumbidgee systems. The deferred start of these plans allowed time for catchment management authorities, in collaboration with both governments, to consult local communities on the best way of reducing ground water entitlements. The goal is to reduce the usage of ground water to the sustainable level over the 10-year period of the water-sharing plans. Financial assistance would be provided to affected ground water entitlement holders to help them adjust to the new levels of entitlement before the actual entitlements are reduced. That would enable those who require more water to buy it from those whose demands are not so great.
In total, the project would deliver a capped contribution of up to $100 million to affected licence holders, up to $9 million for community development projects and up to $1 million for ground water research and consultation with affected communities. It was always agreed that the New South Wales Government would cover one-third of the impact, the Commonwealth would cover one-third and irrigators would cover one-third. That was the deal. Right from the outset, the irrigators drew to John Anderson's attention the possibility of a problem if the payments were taxed.
The taxation of payments would mean that the Federal Government would claw back $47 million, or almost 85 per cent, of its total support. The New South Wales Government wrote to the former Deputy Prime Minister in 2004 requesting reconsideration of the Commonwealth Government's proposed tax treatment. Remember that the Commonwealth, not the State Government, is responsible for the Australian Taxation Office and its rulings. Time and time again the New South Wales Government raised concerns related to this issue, but what are members of The Nationals in New South Wales doing about it? Earlier this year the Minister for Natural Resources wrote to several members of the Commonwealth Government. His letter states:
The purpose of this letter is to seek your urgent reconsideration of the proposed taxation of the payments to be made under the program to eligible licence holders for a reduction of their irrigation water assets.
I am advised that it is the Australian Government's intent to treat such payments as income despite the fact that the payments are clearly being made as a result of a loss in the value of their capital assets.
Should such a proposal proceed, individual irrigators could lose up to 47% of their total payments in tax, depending on the current financial position. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1987
That is an example of what the New South Wales Labor Government is doing, but what are members of The Nationals doing about this? What have they done to stand up for primary producers? Nothing! When it comes to influencing their peers, they have no capacity whatsoever to do so. They are irrelevant. Have they done anything to represent their constituents or even earn their salaries? Thank goodness for Country Labor members, such as honourable member for Murray-Darling, Peter Black, the honourable member for Monaro, Steve Whan, and the Minister for Natural Resources, Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Mineral Resources, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, and others in the Country Labor group. Even Independents such as the honourable member for Tamworth, Peter Draper, have been fighting for irrigators.
Every year the Howard Government robs New South Wales blind through the GST, and now it wants to tax payments. It is lucky for hardworking irrigators in areas such as the lower Murray, the Murrumbidgee and the Namoi that the State Government is willing to stand up for them on this issue. When the Commonwealth Government and members opposite forced deregulation upon the dairy industry, they also decided to treat payments made to our hardworking dairy farmers as taxable income. Members of The Nationals should be condemned for their weakness and cowardice.
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [5.00 p.m.], in reply: Considering some of the contributions made by members opposite, I commence my reply with some alarm. I select three matters mentioned by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli. First, he attempted to rewrite history by claiming that the Coalition has led the way in providing financial assistance to irrigators. That is not so. The New South Wales Labor Government's $55 million was on the table for years before the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, delivered any funding. Second, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee misled the House in relation to income tax. He failed to examine what has been said by the Prime Minister and others at the State and Federal levels.
Third, I was intrigued when he mentioned the forum held at Deniliquin to discuss the State Plan. I make the point that the State Plan is the beginning and that more will be done, but I strongly suggest that the concern that was expressed at Deniliquin was largely as a result of inadequate parliamentary representation of the area over many years. As a matter of interest to the people of Deniliquin, I mention also that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee signed off on The Nationals plan to abolish the electorate of Lachlan and draw new electoral boundaries so that Deniliquin would no longer be in the Murrumbidgee electorate.
I salute the remarks made by the honourable member for Bathurst, Gerard Martin, pointing out that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee grievously and wilfully misled the House. The speech made by the honourable member for Bathurst was powerful, unlike the lazy speech made by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee—lazy with a capital L. I am not sure of the relevance of the honourable member for Burrinjuck's reference to water charges in the Lachlan district. However, I do know that, inter alia, she condemned the Federal Government because the national water initiative implemented by the Federal Government is a user- pays policy. Irrespective of whether areas are continuously in and out of drought, the Federal Government demands recovery of its expenditure based on its view that the provision of infrastructure is a cost and infrastructure is costly to operate.
[Interruption]
I point out to the honourable member for Burrinjuck that it was a former great leader of the hexadactyl members opposite who said in 1992 that water should become tradeable, and signed off on the legislation. That was none other than the honourable member for Lachlan, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, and that is why we now have the national water initiative that has been implemented by the Federal Government, which the honourable member for Burrinjuck apparently is complaining about. I also salute the eloquence of the honourable member for Kiama, who addressed many of the points I made at the outset. Country Labor is playing its part in supporting country people, and rightly so.
I am particularly concerned in the context of the scarcity of water that approximately 30,000 megalitres, which is sufficient to fill 30,000 Olympic-size swimming pools, was sold in the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys in recent weeks for an average of more than $150 per megalitre, compared with $82 a megalitre in the summer of 2002, when the State was suffering the worst drought on record up until that time, which put many dairy farmers out of business. Further south, in Victoria's Goulburn Valley, the cost per megalitre is $350, which is an absolutely astronomical sum. I am informed by the Internet-based water trading company, Waterfind, that approximately 10 times as much water was traded in August of this year than in the same month last year and that the situation is becoming increasingly desperate. 1988 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
In conclusion, I reiterate the remarks I made at the outset about the Red Gum Icons Project. Labor fought off the green groups, but what about members opposite? Have they ruled out giving the green Mayor of Marrickville their preferences? Have they ruled out giving non-Labor preferences in the Balmain electorate in 2007? They have not. The Labor Government fought off the greens, but the Coalition has no credibility whatsoever. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 51
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Perry Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Price Ms Andrews Ms Hay Ms Saliba Mr Barr Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Ms Beamer Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Black Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Mr McLeay Mr Torbay Mr Chaytor Mr McTaggart Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Mr Mills Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Moore Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Tellers, Mrs Fardell Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin Mr Gaudry Mr Pearce
Noes, 25
Mr Aplin Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Hazzard Mr Pringle Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Maguire Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr R. W. Turner
Pair
Ms D'Amore Mrs Hancock
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
INSURANCE COSTS
Matter of Public Importance
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [5.05 p.m.]: The matter of public importance I bring to the attention of the House relates to a sharp rise in insurance costs across New South Wales that is affecting the ability of businesses to maintain the profits needed to continue operating with the same staffing levels. In our modern society, increases in premiums are as certain as death and taxes. The many vexatious court proceedings we have witnessed in recent years forced insurance companies to increase their rates to maintain their desired 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1989
profit levels. Recently, residents in my electorate and, indeed, across the State have experienced sharp rises in their premiums, only this time it is not a consequence of insurance companies attempting to maintain high profits. From September last year, the insurance companies have increased the fire service levy on commercial business and farm policies from 26 per cent to 30 per cent, with a further increase to 34 per cent taking effect in February this year. At the same time the State Government increased the stamp duty component from 5 per cent to 9 per cent.
In domestic home and contents policies the fire service levy was increased from 14 per cent to 18 per cent in February this year. It was then increased a further 4 per cent to 22 per cent in April. Stamp duty on those policies was also increased from 5 per cent to 9 per cent. For many residents in the electorate of Tamworth those increases came despite little or no increase in their basic premium. They came without warning and have created a great deal of anxiety in the community, especially for business operators who are finding the imposts of drought and interest rate rises very difficult to deal with. The Government has been quite content, of course, to let these increases sneak by with as little attention as possible.
Following the announcement in September 2005 that stamp duty on domestic and commercial policies would increase from 5 per cent to 9 per cent, former Premier Bob Carr was reported to have said "insurers will absorb the increase". As any business owner could tell you, no viable business can simply absorb such increased costs and continue operating. These costs are passed on to the consumer and, as a result, the resulting increases penalised those prudent people who choose to insure their assets and potential liabilities.
Historically, the fire service levy resulted from the inequitable and unethical practices of insurance houses many years ago. In those days, when a home or business was insured, it displayed a fire mark or badge signifying the insurance house that held the policy. Urban and rural fire brigades were then owned and funded by the insurance companies to protect their clients' assets. However, as a result the ridiculous situation arose in which some fire brigades were protecting only the properties covered by that brigade's owner. That eventually came to the attention of the government of the day, which introduced a fire service levy on each premium to fund the operation of fire brigades and to ensure every property, regardless of its insurer, was treated equally. Today the Government indicates how much money needs to be raised through the insurance sector to maintain our essential emergency services, and the industry decides where and how to impose the levy and to what degree.
Rural people will suffer the most from the Government's policy. The Rural Fire Service protects all properties in remote areas of the State from fire, while New South Wales Fire Brigades services those in built-up areas. For many residents in regional areas of this State the nearest fire station may be many kilometres away, while most in urban areas are mere minutes from a fire station. The Rural Fire Service operates on a voluntary basis, and the stations may not always be manned, unlike many urban New South Wales fire brigade stations.
This brings me to the matter of equity. A person who owns a $600,000 property at Nundle, a small rural village in my electorate, will pay exactly the same premium as a person with a property of the same value in Sydney. It is clear that the resident in Sydney will be better serviced and can rely on a quick response from a nearby brigade in the event of a fire. That has brought some residents in my electorate to the conclusion that to ensure equity between rural and metropolitan residents the fire services component of the charges should be taken away from insurance premiums and applied to council rates.
It should be understood that I am not for a moment advocating that we should in any way reduce the amount of funding being provided either to New South Wales Fire Brigades or to the Rural Fire Service. What I am saying is that the manner in which these funds are being collected seems to be inequitable and unfair. People who choose not to insure their properties do not contribute to the maintenance of the fire services. However, they will enjoy the full benefit of the service, if needed, by ringing 000. Rural people are hurting badly due to drought, high fuel prices, rising interest rates, and increased food costs, so the last thing they need is an increase in insurance premiums. Most country people budget for small increases of 5 per cent to 10 per cent, but few could afford much more.
Following the last interest rate rise of a quarter of a percentage point, the average home loan repayment in New South Wales rose by about $40 a month. Fuel prices in my area are still hovering at about $1.40 per litre, which adds $10 to $15 to the weekly fuel bill for an average car. The trifecta was completed recently when consumers were hit with a 3 per cent increase in fresh produce prices as petrol prices forced up distribution costs. An amount of $7.50 must now be added to the average weekly family shopping bill of $250, increasing the monthly bill by about $30. That is a bitter pill for families to swallow, especially those on low incomes and those in rural and regional areas who travel great distances to access essential services. 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Wesley Mission, which runs the financial counselling service Creditline, said that last year it counselled over 5,200 people struggling to make ends meet. It expects the number of people defaulting on mortgage, credit card, and consumer repayments to increase significantly as a result of these three rates rises. The most significant debt is the mortgage on the family home, with the national average mortgage running at almost $300,000 although, according to the Australian Finance Group, the average mortgage in New South Wales is around $370,000. In addition, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average total household debt has grown to $69,400.
From a consumer's perspective these hikes are hard to understand or justify. Tamworth resident and egg producer Bede Burke is facing an increase on his farm business from $10,727 to $12,128. Mr Burke's basic premium increased by 2.2 per cent but the fire service component increased by 44 per cent and the stamp duty component increased by 96 per cent. The GST charged on his premium rose by almost 9 per cent. Obviously such an increase comes at the worst time for Mr Burke, who has been forced to absorb not only rising fuel, food, and mortgage costs but also a hike in fertiliser charges and a record low in egg prices.
Mr Burke is also facing a major restructure of his business due to a national agreement to implement larger layer hen cage sizes by 2008. The cost of this restructure to Mr Burke's business will be around $4.8 million—a move he is now considering delaying because of the rapidly escalating costs of his business. The Burke family is looking at its options, but those options are limited to minimising losses and employing less casual labour, which affects local employment.
Mr Burke is one of many who is considering the option of either reducing or abandoning his insurance cover altogether—placing his belongings, business and livelihood at risk. Such a move, while risky, is understandable to an extent as paying these levies gives many people no direct benefit. During discussions Mr Burke demonstrated his distaste for the fund-raising strategies that are being used at the moment. He is one of many rural residents who is fed up with the enormous imposts being placed on New South Wales businesses.
Another unhappy business owner is David Miskle, the owner-operator of Rutec, a manufacturer of liquid nutrients for agriculture. He is facing an increase in his insurance costs from $6,875 to $7,470. That increase comes without any rise in the basic premium. He said that the Government is making it hard to conduct business in New South Wales by forcing constituents to pay for its poor economic management. He said that these increases would be passed on to the consumer, making it even more difficult to be competitive in this hard time of drought. Many of my constituents and I are confused and upset by the current system of insurance charges. I urge the Government to reconsider the method it uses to raise funds that are vital to maintain fire services in this State.
A Public Accounts Committee inquiry into this issue found that the current system appears to be the most equitable way of raising these much-needed funds. It looked at the application of the fire service levy to council rates so that, in theory, all residents and property owners would contribute equally to the upkeep of the fire service rather than only those who chose to insure, who therefore foot the entire costs of this sector. Unfortunately, the cost burden, when modelled, shifted the main pain from the business sector, where it currently is, to the householder. I am certain that the average resident would not be in favour of a system that sees pricing imposts increase quite significantly.
It is extremely difficult to develop a system that encourages business growth while protecting the householder at the same time, but the groundswell of public opinion against the current system is growing rapidly. I urge the Government to continue to explore options that may deliver a better system. Perhaps the way in which revenue is raised could be looked at again, outside the parameters of the current system. While everybody agrees that the services are essential, the imposts on country businesses and country consumers are having such an enormous effect that they deserve further consideration.
Surely it is time for the stamp duty currently being applied to insurance policies to be removed, as was promised when the GST was implemented across Australia, so that the people of this State are encouraged to insure against the all too frequent malicious damage, fire, storm and earthquake events that have occurred across New South Wales. Country people have raised this important issue with me on a number of occasions. Many people have come into my office and expressed serious concern about the ongoing viability of their businesses. They need to plan for the future to continue the strong employment rates that are evident in the Tamworth electorate. However, they are doing so under quite difficult circumstances. I again urge the Government to look at this issue as a priority. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1991
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.14 p.m.]: In 2004 the Public Accounts Committee devoted a great deal of time to a rigorous and comprehensive investigation of the funding of NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. Representatives on that committee included the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the honourable member for Willoughby, the honourable member for Monaro, the honourable member for Kiama, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and me. The former Treasurer instigated the review in response to a report of the HIH royal commission, and he asked the committee to investigate an alternative system of funding the two fire services.
The investigation, which was comprehensive and rigorous, included numerous public submissions, and the financial modelling of the impact of the proposed property-based levy was commissioned. After that lengthy process the committee found in favour of maintaining the existing system. It found no compelling case for introducing a property levy. It is important to note that the report of the committee was endorsed by representatives from both parties and by the Independent member on the committee. NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service must have a stable and predictable source of income so they can continue to maintain their important services across this State.
[Discussion interrupted.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! It being 5.15 p.m. the House will now deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
WILLOUGHBY ELECTORATE PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [5.23 p.m.]: Public transport is most important in the electorate of Willoughby, and bus services are particularly vital. Willoughby is fortunate to be situated close to the central business district but, as a result, many of our streets are congested with local traffic and through traffic. Regrettably, the State Government has an appalling record in relation to bus services, and from 10 September—just last week—it cut 140 such services throughout the Willoughby electorate. This has caused much angst among local residents who rely on bus services, particularly off-peak services during the week and on weekends. Such services are patronised by many elderly residents and by those who are less mobile. These people must now wait longer to catch buses and endure extended journeys because throughway services are no longer operating.
Services on the 272 route have been cancelled from 9.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. daily during the week. Services on the 273 route have also been reduced on weekends and in off-peak periods. Some 147 services have been cut on those two routes alone. Services from Chatswood to West Ryde and from Chatswood to Gladesville have also been impacted through reductions on the 254 and 256 routes. A few weeks before the 10 September announcement, Chatswood to Bondi Junction bus routes were also affected. The cuts impact not only on those who utilise these critical bus services but on the entire community. It means more traffic on our streets, increased congestion, more cars in residential areas, reduced local amenity and increased pollution.
In addition to the cancellation of bus services, which is causing much angst for so many in our community, the State Government is failing to address critical transport issues affecting children who attend local schools. Two school communities contacted me recently to express their concerns. The first is the Artarmon Public School community. Artarmon students who live in the vicinity of Naremburn and St Leonards have been impacted adversely. More than 1,000 residents have signed a petition, which I will present in Parliament, highlighting the need for a bus service to Artarmon Public School from Naremburn and St Leonards. Natalia Heath wrote to the Minister for Transport about this issue, and said:
As you would be aware the parents of Artarmon Public School have been discussing with State Transit and other relevant organizations the provision of a school bus for the children of Artarmon Public School. 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
We wish to establish a bus service for the children who live within the southern area of Artarmon Public School's catchment boundary—generally the Naremburn/St Leonards area, where the number of families with school-age children is growing.
I endorse the proposal advanced by the Artarmon Public School community, led by the parents and supported by Willoughby City Council, the principal, the parents and citizens association, and the Naremburn Progress Association. This is an important issue, reinforced by the fact that more than 1,000 parents and concerned citizens have signed the petition. I call on the Minister for Transport to acknowledge and listen to their concerns and provide a suitable service.
Parents of students who live in Naremburn and attend Cammeray Public School have raised similar concerns with me regarding the reliability of the bus service their children catch to school. Parents asked me to visit their bus stop last Friday to discuss the matter, which I did. They told me that the school bus is consistently late and unreliable. This means that children are late for school, which is causing stress for parents. Some told me they have had to jump in their cars at the last minute and drive their kids to school—they still arrive late— because the bus did not arrive on time.
If we are to instil a culture of public transport use in our young people we must ensure that services are available, safe, reliable and punctual. Regrettably, the bus to Cammeray Public School that picks up children at the Naremburn bus stop on Willoughby Road is consistently late, and parents and teachers have expressed concerns about what this means for students' punctuality. I call on the Minister for Transport to listen to these concerns and ensure that the service needs of the Cammeray Public School community are met. I reiterate the importance that residents of the Willoughby electorate place on public transport usage and my concern about the State Government's failure to address their needs. I urge the Minister for Transport to reinstate the bus services I have mentioned.
FURNACE, FIRE AND FORGE BOOK LAUNCH
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.28 p.m.]: Last Friday at Lithgow's historic Union Theatre I attended the launch of a magnificent publication entitled Furnace, Fire and Forge, which is a history of Lithgow's iron and steel industry from 1874 to 1932. The book was published by the Light Railway Research Society of Australia and was launched by the Hon. John Della Bosca, Minister for Industrial Relations, among other things. Minister Della Bosca has strong family ties with Lithgow—his father was born at Lithgow and many of his direct relatives still reside there—so it was very appropriate that he officiated. The Minister made a great speech in which he entwined the role of people involved with the book with events in Australia today, and the importance of the Labor movement in our history, particularly our industrial history.
The book was put together by Bob McKillop, who co-opted a wide range of people to write on various aspects that made Lithgow so important as the cradle of heavy industry in Australia. The foreword was penned by former Premier Bob Carr. Those who assisted and collaborated with Bob McKillop in producing this magnificent book include Michael Wilson, Ray Christison and Ian Rufus from the Lithgow State Mine Museum, and the late Ian Holt of the Lithgow Historical Society. Jeff Moonie, Jim Longworth, Greg Patmore and also Ray Christison contributed chapters in the book, and former BHP executive Jerry Platt provided valuable data and advice. The 320 page hard-cover volume contains many magnificent photographs, maps and diagrams that add a valuable background to and understanding of the narrative. Bob McKillop states on the flyleaf of the book:
Lithgow, located to the west of the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, emerged as Australia's first inland heavy industrial centre following the opening of the railway into the valley in 1879. From tentative beginnings with the first blast furnace in 1874, its iron industry became the main driver of development in the city. With the first steel furnace in 1900 and Australia's first large- scale blast furnace for iron making 1906, Lithgow laid the foundations of Australia's iron and steel industry.
This book tells the story of the town and its iron and steel industry, both in terms of the plant and associated mines and railways, but also through the eyes of the men who toiled at the works to support their families. In doing so it provides new perspectives on the foundations of Australia's heavy industry, notably the key role played by Daniel Williams in founding the works, the industrial conflict of the early 1908-1911 period, the role played by the industry in World War I and the construction of Sydney's landmarks in the 1920s, through to the abandonment of Lithgow as a steel-making centre in favour of Port Kembla.
As former Premier Bob Carr states in his Foreword, "In the best traditions of local history, it is a co-operative effort—built, as Bob McKillop says, on the dedication and skills and thousands of work hours of voluntary effort by the members of his team. This isn't history written from afar; it's written by those with ties to their communities and memories of the men and women who shaped the events of this book."
It is "a story of visionary projects and shattered hopes, enlivened by the work of many brave and colourful individuals." 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1993
I recommend that honourable members on both sides of the House acquire a copy of this magnificent volume, the first informative history of Lithgow's iron and steel industry. At the same function, my colleague, friend and mayor of Lithgow, Neville Castle, also launched the Furnace Fire and Forge heritage trail, which was jointly funded by Lithgow council and the New South Wales Heritage Office. The heritage trail outlines places of interest in the history of Lithgow, starting with the world-famous and unique Zig Zag Railway, the wonderful Hoskins Memorial Church, and the Union Theatre, which started in 1981 as the Oddfellows Society hall, a wonderful venue now owned by the council and community.
Other contributors to the heritage trail include: the Lithgow Co-operative Society, a major part of Lithgow's economy for 90 years; Lithgow State Coal Mine; Cullen Bullen, Portland and other outlying parts of Lithgow that importantly contributed mainly through coalmining; Lithgow Valley colliery and pottery—the first commercial pottery works in Australia, Mathew Silcock being the first potter, which was entwined with the steelworks—and the Small Arms Factory, which was established in 1911 and played a major role in Australia's history and produced every rifle and small arm that has ever been produced for the Armed Forces in Australia. Furnace, Fire and Forge is a great legacy for the people of Lithgow and the history of heavy industry in Australia.
ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY HEAVY VEHICE INSPECTION STATIONS
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.33 p.m.]: The lifeblood of rural Australia is the trucking industry. Truckies carry this country. As much as other road users may occasionally be frustrated by being stuck behind slow-moving semis, rural New South Wales could not survive without them. Our ability to duck down to the local superette, IGA, butcher or supermarket to get a couple of litres of fresh milk or some fresh vegetables is dependent on the road transport industry. There is probably not an item for sale, nor a service available in the electorate of Burrinjuck, which is not dependent on the trucking industry. Yet this vital industry is the subject of an inflexible State Government inspection regime, which places additional costs on truck operators.
My concerns lie not with the larger vehicle fleet owners, who have flexibility in scheduling, but with the small owner operators who only operate a few vehicles, or perhaps only one. Those small operators are already doing it tough with high fuel prices, low margins and excessive New South Wales Labor Government small business red tape. Recently I received a letter from Mr Aspevik, a small trucking operator based in the Goulburn area, who wrote:
Regarding the RTA rego inspection of heavy vehicles, New South Wales needs to get into line with the other States when it comes to Rego inspections on heavy vehicles. At the moment a truck owner has to make an appointment up to 3 months prior to rego date, and if you miss out on your time slot, you have to go to an authorised inspection station and get a road worthy slip, and the RTA give you an interim rego label. So you then have to make another time slot with the RTA for inspection. This is very time consuming and costly.
In the electorate of Burrinjuck, heavy vehicle inspection sites are located in Tumut, Gundagai, Yass, Marulan and Crookwell. In fact the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] web site states that there are more than 100 heavy vehicle inspection sites located throughout New South Wales. This sounds impressive, but there is a catch. In the seven months between August 2006 and February 2007 the Gundagai heavy vehicle site will be open for only four days. The Yass site is open for only 10 days, Tumut eight days, Crookwell eight days, and the Marulan heavy vehicle inspection site located at the Hume Highway checking station only 20 days. In an area of more than 25,000 square kilometres there are only 50 days on which an owner operator or small trucking firm can obtain a local inspection. They can travel to Queanbeyan, which is open for 30 days, but this means they will lose at least a whole day of earning capacity and will be hit with significant fuel costs to travel long distances for an inspection.
As a frequent traveller on the Hume Highway I am a strong proponent of a tough stance on heavy vehicle safety. Indeed, driving to Parliament this week I was very nearly a part of the terrible fatal truck collision at Hovells Creek near Jerrawa, where a truck broke down on a narrow bridge when its electronics failed. There were no lights in or around the vehicle, and it was pitch dark at night. If safety inspections are easier to access, and do not involve considerable unproductive expense, it follows that compliance with inspection requirements will be greater. Greater compliance with safety inspection regulations will help to prevent accidents such as that on the Hume Highway in the very early pre-dawn hours of Tuesday morning. Mr Aspevik further wrote:
I am a small operator and have only 3 trucks and 4 trailers, each of them need a time slot with the RTA. So you have to hold them back at least a couple of days so you don't miss your timeslot. 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
If the RTA finds a defect they send you to an authorised inspection station, a garage with a licensed mechanic in most cases. Then he has to repair the defects and then he can clear them instead of going back to the RTA.
Why can we not go straight to the mechanic at the authorised inspection station in the first place. So he can make sure the vehicle is in a roadworthy shape, just as they do with your car. This works in Victoria and saves the operator up to a week in downtime in most cases.
Mr Paul Wyer from Fertspread, a small agricultural trucking company near Gunning, told me that he estimates that the RTA registration requirements cost his company about $4,500 per vehicle in lost revenue. VicRoads staff informed me that in Victoria a heavy vehicle needing an annual road safety inspection for Federal registration can be driven to a licensed vehicle tester for a safety inspection. They are listed alphabetically on the VicRoads web site. There are 10 VicRoads authorised vehicle testers in Albury alone, including Jeff Erith Trucks and South Albury Truck Repairs. Both those businesses are approved by VicRoads to inspect heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes GVM.
That raises an interesting point because a New South Wales heavy vehicle in Albury can only get an RTA inspection on one of 16 days between August 2006 and February 2007. But a Victorian registered heavy vehicle from across the border in Wodonga, can drive into Albury, in New South Wales, any working day and get a vehicle safety inspection. Are we not plumbing the depths of absurdity? Surely small heavy vehicle operators like Mr Aspevik have the right to feel frustrated at the ridiculous system placed on them by the bureaucracy-bound New South Wales Labor Government. Surely this is yet another example of the desperate need for major reform of the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, a complete overhaul to which The Nationals are committed.
BANKSTOWN 2006 RELAY FOR LIFE
Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown) [5.38 p.m.]: I would like to relate to the House an important event to take place in my electorate and in the surrounding area on the weekend of 23 and 24 September 2006. This event, which has the potential to save lives, is the Relay For Life. It is organised under the auspices of the Cancer Council of New South Wales, with a lot of local volunteers and community organisations coming together with but one focus in mind, and that is a community event that can really make a difference to the lives of everyone affected by cancer, particularly as it can increase awareness of this insidious and terrible disease.
Cancer does not discriminate between age, race or gender and any of us can be affected. In fact, most of us have been touched by the impact of this disease on our own families. One in three people are affected by cancer. I watched my father die of this insidious disease at the very young age of 57 years, when he should have had a lot more to contribute to the family and community. I can say firsthand how affected I am by it, yet how inspired I am to do something about the disease. Relay For Life is about harnessing the realities and consequences of the disease, bringing awareness to the community and making this a community-focused event.
Relay For Life is an event in which teams of 10 to 15 people take turns to walk or run, over a period of 24 hours. It has been organised to take place at The Crest, Georges Hall, on the outskirts of my electorate. Relay For Life is a team event in which the young and old, cancer survivors, carers, families, workers and schools along with service, community and sporting clubs all participate. I am pleased to report that the Bankstown community once again has shown its generosity by becoming very involved in the event. Most importantly, Relay For Life celebrates the fact that more and more people are surviving cancer today and it creates hope for people who are battling the disease.
The objectives of Relay For Life are: to celebrate cancer survivors; to remember people who have died from cancer—which I certainly will be doing; to raise money for cancer research and support; to provide enjoyment and entertainment; to promote Cancer Council programs; to involve local communities, sponsorship, participation and the media so that they will be aware of what cancer can do; and, of course, to be Cancer Smart, that is, to understand how to avoid cancer. A number of important ceremonies have been arranged to celebrate the event. They include the Survivor's Walk, with cancer survivors, wearing red sashes, walking a lap of the relay, being honoured by all who recognise their plight and their courage.
Also organised is the Candlelight Ceremony of Hope. At dusk, the inside of the track will be filled with illuminated candle bag tributes. Each bag is inscribed with a personal message—a simple, but powerful, gesture that glows in support or in memory of family and friends affected by the loss of someone to cancer. In the closing ceremony, all participants come together in triumph for the final lap together to remember the fun and special memories forged during the Relay For Life. I want to thank those who have made possible this Relay 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1995
For Life event to take place on the weekend. I commend particularly the Bankstown District Sports Club, which has always been very generous in its support of any community event; the Handle Bar Tavern, at Bass Hill, which has worked hard to support the event financially; Bankstown City Council and councillors, not only for providing financial support but also for support in kind by making available the grounds at The Crest—all to ensure that the Cancer Council and all those involved make this event successful.
I thank also the Torch newspaper, which has been tremendous in its public support of the Relay For Life. Since the announcement of the Relay For Life several weeks ago there has not been an issue of the Torch that has not dedicated items supporting the event and encouraging the community to understand it and participate in it. I want to thank the Managing Director of the Torch, John Engisch, who has this newspaper in place in the local area. We all cherish the work that newspaper has done to encourage community events such as this. The Torch has been wholeheartedly behind the Relay For Life. I thank also those behind the scenes who have made this event possible, particularly the event co-ordinator, Belinda Brennan, who has worked up to 23 hours a day for the past couple of weeks to make the event work. She has been and remains a tremendous asset for the Cancer Council of New South Wales. I thank also Wayne Trotman, the event chair. I am honoured to say that I have been selected by Relay For Life as their patron. I will be there all weekend, supporting this great community event and helping people to beat this terrible disease.
WOOLCOTT COURT, WAHROONGA, RESIDENTS
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [5.43 p.m.]: Today I wish to raise a serious matter that I have raised twice before in this House. It involves Woolcott Court, also known as the Waldorf, and the plight of eight elderly residents, who paid substantial sums of money for head leases or subleases to enable them, if they wish, to live for the remainder of their lives in these apartment-style units, which come under the retirement villages legislation. The residents thought they were protected by the Retirement Villages Act. How wrong they were.
The speech made by the Minister in Parliament today does not paint a correct picture of the current circumstances. It was a little, but too late. I first raised this issue on 25 June 2002 on behalf of Mrs Edna Steward, who called me and expressed serious concerns that she had a lease that did not appear to be legally completed. She mentioned also the fact that she had lost $130,000 of her money that had been placed with the retirement village to secure residence there for the remainder of her days. I raised this matter also on 22 November 2002, when I expressed extreme concern that the issue had not been adequately addressed by the relevant Minister. An administrator for the retirement village had been appointed in 2001, but after five years of the hostel being under administration, those people are no further advanced than they were on day one. This is very disappointing and demonstrates an abrogation of a government's responsibilities when elderly people are placed in this invidious position.
The Minister put out a press release on 14 September 2006 headed "Good news for Woolcott residents". It holds out to residents some sort of reassurance—which would be totally misplaced—saying that the Minister had obtained legal advice that gives former Woolcott Court residents some surety. The Minister said in the press release that here are nine remaining residents. However, I would have to inform the Minister, as I did earlier today, that only eight remain. My response to this "Good news for Woolcott residents" press release is that the residents really do not have any good news or surety. Advice is not good enough for them. All of them were sent a letter from the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading stating:
Whilst in no way does this letter represent legal advice that is specific to your situation (for which you are encouraged as previously advised to seek your own legal advice) a summary of our understanding of the position is as follows:
It then summarises the understanding of the Office of Fair Trading, ending with the statement:
You should seek your own independent legal advice with respect to your legal rights.
It also states that residents should contact the Office of Fair Trading should they be presented with some sort of eviction notice. These residents, who are now under tenancy legislation, still feel nervous about their futures. More recently, they have been visited from time to time by the Department of Fair Trading. However, they have not been given any assurance that they will not be subject to eviction in the future. The Minister visited the village yesterday—probably prompted by words "Alan Jones" and relayed to her by one of the residents. The Minister attended with a member of her staff as well as a representative from the department, and was asked questions about the advice and the letter from the department such as: Does this lease have the same legal rights? The Minister was asked by the residents to obtain a letter from the Crown Solicitor so that they will have more surety. 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
I call on the Minister to ensure that these people have the same rights under their leases as they had on the day they moved into Woolcott Court. I ask the Minister to provide proof that she is not passing the buck from the department being responsible to the person who holds the mortgage on the accommodation in which these people currently reside, so that when an eviction notice comes the department will not be called upon to be responsible and cause the residents to spend a lot more of their money fighting to resolve a legal problem. [Time expired.]
MATER DEI FOUNDATION
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [5.48 p.m.]: On Saturday 9 September it was my great pleasure to attend the sixth annual Mater Dei Foundation Fundraising dinner. I note that my colleagues Graham West, the honourable member for Campbelltown, and Steven Chaytor, the honourable member for Macquarie Fields, were also in attendance lending their support to the wonderful work carried out at Mater Dei. Mater Dei is an organisation that was established by the Sisters of the Good Samaritan who have served the poor, the marginalised and the disadvantaged on the Mater Dei site since 1910. Mater Dei started as an orphanage, providing a healthy environment for orphans who lived in the inner city areas of Sydney. In 1957 the Bishop of Wollongong approached the Sisters to establish a school for girls with intellectual disabilities. The Sisters undertook this very difficult task and are proud stewards of this wonderful ministry.
Mater Dei has grown and prospered over the years and now offers a kindergarten to year 12 co- educational school, a residential facility and an early intervention centre located on the beautiful Mater Dei property in rural Camden. Mater Dei offers a variety of services and expertise that have contributed to it being recognised as a high-quality provider of education and services in special education and disability throughout New South Wales. It is worth repeating Mater Dei's philosophy, which is "Inclusion for all into the wider community". Its mission is to make that philosophy a reality for the children, students and young adults in their care. I can state unequivocally that in my view they achieve their aims. The fundraising dinner was, as always, well supported by the wider Macarthur community, which always gives generously to good causes. I put on the public record that $220,000 was raised on the night.
But that was not the highlight. Indeed there were two highlights. The first was the students' performance of Shannon Noll's song Shine. I cannot recall such an exuberant performance in all the functions I have attended over the years. They were magnificent. They are indeed special students! The second was John Adam. Each year parents of a Mater Dei child are asked to talk about their personal experiences with their children and how they have found Mater Dei. This year my good friend John Adam, currently managing partner of Marsdens the Attorneys and better known as former captain of the mighty North Sydney Bears, spoke of his daughter Jacqueline, who is 13 years old and has been a student of Mater Dei for 2½years. She is autistic. Those are the bare facts. But John Adam spoke so lovingly and caringly about Jacqueline and the challenges and the opportunities that she has presented to John and his wife, Anne, and their family that there was barely a dry eye in the room. I will quote briefly from part of John's speech on what a difference Mater Dei has made to Jacqueline's life since she started at the school 2½years ago. He said:
Mater Dei is naturally different to a mainstream school. There are no history classes, there are no geography classes because there is no need for them. Jacqueline's curriculum is tailored to her. So she learns to cook, learns to swim, learns the value of money, learns to read, form relationships, look after her personal hygiene, learns to play in playgrounds and learns how to be independent. These are her HSC subjects. And is she progressing? You betcha.
He concluded:
Finally, I have told you about a number of Jacqueline's faults and Anne insisted that I had to tell you about some of Jacqueline's good sides. Well that will be easy. Jacqueline is one of the cutest and loveliest kids you will ever meet. We are so lucky that we have her in our lives and because of her I am so much a better person and she is just one of the best mates you could ever have. I tell you sincerely that if ever you want to have a good time, just spend a few hours with one of the kids from Mater Dei. They will of course benefit but you will have the time of your life.
I congratulate the Foundation Dinner Committee—Phil McCarroll, John Adam, Angus Cox, Peter Donnelly, Debbie Gates, Jim Marsden, Kevin O'Keefe, Frank Pitt and Max Tegel—on their work and Steve Edge on his compering the evening every year. Thank you. I quote briefly from what Phil McCarroll said:
In a world where there are so many demands on our time, energy and resources, I am constantly overwhelmed by the generosity of people who support a work that they may not gain direct benefit from. Such enthusiasm and selflessness encourage us all to do the best that we can and together, with the wonderful young people who are part of the Mater Dei community, be the best people that we can. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1997
This year the money raised from tonight's dinner will be directed toward supporting the social education programs currently in place at Mater Dei that provide skills and opportunities that we cannot offer in the confines of the school. It is only through access to our community that our young people will develop the skills and capacities to take their rightful place in society. In providing such opportunities we bring our vision of "inclusion for all" to life by helping to build inclusive communities.
I congratulate Frank Pitt, the principal and his wonderful staff on their wonderful work at Mater Dei. It truly is a magnificent school. I also congratulate the Sisters of the Good Samaritan on their wonderful ministry, keeping the school, looking after the staff and maintaining that historic building.
Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.]: I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Camden on the fantastic sixth Mater Dei fundraising event. Mater Dei certainly is a special place that is held in high regard throughout the region. I can do no more than agree with his entire speech. The performance of Shine by the students was, as always, excellent. It certainly filled people with joy. John Adam, who is a guy who does not usually share his emotions, gave a very emotional speech. John and his wife are inspirational in the way they approach the care of their daughter. Mater Dei holds a special place in their hearts. Everyone dug deep to support the work inspired by the Good Samaritans.
I also congratulate Phil McCarroll, John Adam, Angus Cox, Peter Donnelly, Debbie Gates, Kevin O'Keefe, Max Tegel and the principal, Frank Pitt, not only on their work on the night but also on their fantastic work at the school. The motto at the school is peace. The honourable member for Camden and I were at the school only three weeks before the event, and I certainly got that feeling at the school. It is a place of peace and acceptance. It is a place where real learning occurs and families are helped, not only through the school but also through outreach programs, the Bethany Early Intervention Program, and accommodation services. I join with the honourable member for Camden in congratulating the team at Mater Dei. I look forward to their continuing work in the community.
CROWN LAND RENT INCREASES
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [5.55 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to my serious concerns about the Labor Government's approach to the charging of rent on Crown land where community facilities are located. The State Government's unreasonable policy of increasing rent for Crown land, in one case by as much as 470 per cent, is threatening the viability of many community facilities. After wasting the proceeds of 10 years of economic sunshine in New South Wales due to the property boom, this greedy Government is charging exorbitant rents for community facilities, showing that it has no regard for the importance of community facilities, their role in keeping communities together and the social benefits they provide.
In the early 1990s a deal was negotiated between the New South Wales Coalition Government and Ballina Shire Council to allow the council to lease a portion of Crown land adjacent to the Richmond River for the purposes of providing a central location for the Ballina Visitor Information Centre, the Ballina Public Library and a community function facility, known as the Richmond Room. This land provided an ideal location for these community facilities. It is located within the central business district, it allows easy access for both residents and visitors to the area, and it is in close proximity to the picturesque Richmond River.
However, Ballina Shire Council recently received notification from the Department of Lands that the rent for the land will be substantially increased. The council was informed the rent would be increased from the current figure of about $19,000 to $90,000 per annum—a 470 per cent increase! It must be noted that these three community facilities on Crown land cost council a total of $810,000 a year to run. The net cost to council per annum to operate the library is $450,000, the Visitor Information Centre $350,000 and the Richmond Room $10,000. Council is in no way profiting financially from operating these services. To the contrary, it is costing ratepayers $810,000 to run plus the original construction costs paid for by local ratepayers.
Following objections by Ballina Shire Council to the 470 per cent rent rise, the Lands department agreed to reduce the rent to $45,000 per annum. However, this still represents a rise of 240 per cent. This is simply not viable for the council, which already outlays $810,000 to provide these important facilities for the community. The council has requested the Department of Lands again to revise this rent increase, and has offered to pay $22,500 per annum, an increase of approximately 20 per cent, which is still quite high. They are still awaiting a response. The Government is making a blatant money grab at the expense of vital community facilities. This is simply a revenue-raising exercise that blatantly displays the Government's lack of understanding of the importance of public facilities to a community. But unfortunately the Government's money-grabbing approach to Crown Land rent does not stop there. 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
The Ballina Shire Council has also been advised by the Department of Lands that in order for a planned, and very-much needed, community centre at Lennox Head to go ahead, the centre must pay a commercially based rent to the Government. This is a ludicrous notion as a community centre is simply by nature not a profit-raising development and the extra rental cost will only jeopardise the council's financial ability to provide the community centre. The Lennox Head community is rapidly growing and is in urgent need of a place where the community can come together, socialise, and utilise it for community events, such as concerts and celebrations. The council has undertaken significant planning for the development of this community centre at Williams Reserve, including a Plan of Management for Williams Reserve, which was endorsed in 2002. The community and the council have dedicated countless hours towards developing plans for the most suitable community centre and community precinct at Williams Reserve, yet the Labor Government has effectively thwarted that plan by making it a condition that the centre generate substantial revenue to line the Government's coffers.
It must be noted that the initial request for the Government to acquire Williams Reserve as Crown land in 1952 was made on behalf of the Lennox Head Progress and Ratepayers Association by the council. The Department of Lands' agreement was conditional on council paying half the cost of the acquisition and all processing costs. So it comes as a cruel slap in the face to Ballina shire ratepayers that they are now being told by the Government that the centre must raise revenue, purely to bolster the Treasury, when the council paid half of the original acquisition costs of the land. The council is expending significant monies on building the community centre. The additional burden of paying a commercially based rent could seriously jeopardise the future of the community centre.
The Government is putting revenue raising above the needs of the Ballina shire community in both Ballina and Lennox Head. The greedy Labor Government in New South Wales is effectively depriving communities of much-needed facilities. I urge the Government to reconsider its hefty rent rises and take into account the importance of community facilities on Crown land.
SUTHERLAND DISTRICT RURAL FIRE SERVICE
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.00 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I inform the House of the presentation last week of firefighting appliances to the Sutherland district's Rural Fire Service. I was joined by the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Tony Kelly, the Rural Fire Service's Commissioner, Phil Koperberg, AO, AFSM, BEM, and the newly elected Mayor of the Sutherland Shire Council my good friend Councillor David Redmond, who was undertaking his first official engagement. I wish him all the best for his future in that role because he is taking the politics out of civic administration and putting the interests of the community first. The Deputy Mayor of the Sutherland Shire Council, Ken McDonell, also attended. The presentation was arranged by the Acting Fire Control Officer, Martyn Keillor.
Three new bushfire tankers were handed over at the ceremony to volunteers from Heathcote, Loftus and Waterfall at the Sutherland Fire Control Centre Headquarters at Heathcote. Earlier that day the honourable member for Menai, Alison Megarrity, was also present with Commissioner Koperberg to hand over a tanker at Sandy Point. I also had handed over firefighting appliances at Otford at the Wollongong Rural Fire Service's centre that day. A total of five new tankers were delivered to the Sutherland area to improve the area's front-line response to bushfires. With the proximity of housing in the area being so close to bushland, it is vital to have the best possible equipment to help firefighters succeed in safely battling bushfires.
The new tankers will be deployed during the forthcoming bushfire season which commences on 1 October. The new tankers are all heavy firefighting vehicles that are able to carry between 3,000 litres of water and 4,000 litres of water as well as up to six firefighters and firefighting equipment. The new vehicles replace older ones and will improve firefighting capabilities in the district, particularly in rugged terrain. In providing the new tankers, the State Government is reflecting community sentiment that Rural Fire Service volunteers should have the most modern and capable vehicles and other resources to be able to do their jobs effectively and safely. The Government and the Rural Fire Service have placed special importance on providing new and high- quality, second-hand tankers to Rural Fire Service volunteers to ensure that they and the people of New South Wales are protected. Since 1995 the New South Wales Rural Fire Service has been provided with funding of approximately $300 million by the Government for the purchase of approximately 3,000 tankers.
I pay a tribute to the volunteer firefighters for their ongoing commitment and dedication to protecting their local communities from fires and other emergencies. The community of the Heathcote electorate owes a special debt of gratitude to Rural Fire Service volunteers. They and their families sacrifice so much: Volunteers 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1999
regularly place themselves in danger to protect our lives and property. Our behalf of the Government and the community, I thank them. When the Rural Fire Service's Commissioner, Phil Koperberg, addressed the gathering, he warned that New South Wales could be facing another potentially long and severe bushfire period during the summer of 2006-07. He stated:
In the northern part of the State there have already been a number of fires and the official bush fire season will begin on October 1. Experts are predicting a possible El Niño, and more extreme fire danger days.
These new tankers will significantly boost the brigades' capacity to respond to fire and to protect, not only their own communities, but also other communities in New South Wales, and even interstate.
Home owners need to play their part in combating bushfires. I encourage members of the community to clear their properties of rubbish and draw up a home fire safety plan to help their families deal with bushfires. In the 2005-06 financial year, the Rural Fire Service budget was a record $168 million, which is an increase of $27.9 million, or 20 per cent, on the previous year's budget allocation. Since 1994-95 the Rural Fire Service has received a total increase of $117.4 million, or 231.5 per cent.
I commend members of the Rural Fire Service at Sandy Point, Otford, Heathcote, Loftus and Waterfall brigades as well as the 400 other brigades across the State that participated recently in an open day—an important part of the Family FireWise Fun event. The months leading up to the bushfire season are when the Rural Fire Service raises community awareness, prepares people for the fire season by encouraging them to clear their properties of combustible material, and undertakes recruitment. I encourage people who are interest in firefighting to join their local Rural Fire Service as a worthwhile way of contributing to their community.
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [6.05 p.m.]: Today it was my privilege to attend a law and education graduation at the Macquarie University, which is in my electorate of Epping, and to reflect on 19 years of my association with the university, in particular during the period from 1988 to 1995 when I was the Legislative Assembly's representative on the university's council. It was a pleasure to see some familiar faces, such as the Registrar and Vice-Principal, Brian Spencer, who has been employed by the university education even before it was opened in 1964, and Judge Lincoln, the Deputy Chancellor, who also has been involved with the university since its earliest days.
Throughout my association with the university, I had a long association with the recently retired Vice- Chancellor of the university, Di Yerbury, whom I admired and respected greatly, despite our differences of opinion from time to time. One difference of opinion we had concerned an internal audit committee for the university's council, which I thought was necessary. However, Di Yerbury made a wonderful contribution to that establishment as well as to higher education in the role she ultimately undertook as chairman of the Vice- Chancellors Committee of Australia. I wish her well in her retirement.
Together with longstanding employees and associates of Macquarie University at the graduation was one of the newest, the Vice-Chancellor Professor Steven Schwartz, who is an extremely impressive successor to Di Yerbury. I had a chat at lunchtime with Professor Schwartz and, among other things, we discussed our common interest in the Centre for Independent Studies, which is managed by Greg Lindsay, and all that he stands for in the marketplace of debate on ideas. I was very interested to note in a recent edition of the university's magazine, Campus Review, a statement referring to Professor Schwartz:
Schwartz has firm views on the purpose of the university, referring to Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek's comments that the way to judge a publicly funded organisation is the extent to which it advances freedom and liberty.
I certainly agree with that statement. I know that Hayek looms large in the thinking of Greg Lindsay and all those who are at the Centre for Independent Studies. Today Professor Schwartz made a statement in the presence of graduates pointing out that universities are one of the few institutions that began over 500 years ago. One of the other very few institutions that has existed over the same period and beyond, apart from the Catholic Church and some other venerable organisations, is the parliamentary system of democracy.
I was most impressed by those who spoke at the graduation. Robyn Beaman, who received a PhD in Education today, and Professor Kercher from the Law School addressed both law and education graduates. Robyn made the point that in both disciplines evidence is very important and central. In her area of education she called it "data." Nevertheless, the empirical measurement of things, whether in education or law for the purposes of proving an argument or putting a case to students, is of central importance. That is very much what 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Macquarie University is about. At the same time both speakers were keen to stress that it is also about a broad, liberal education.
My friend Professor Bruce Kercher from the Law School is a prime example of that. He spent much of his academic career talking about remedies, which involves, amongst other things, fairly dry but important subjects such as Mareva injunctions and injunctions of all types, as well as various other orders. He has since branched out into legal history and is now one of the great legal historians of Australia, with a very strong international reputation. He made the point that the best lawyers, the best judges—and the best teachers for that matter—are those with a broad evidence-based education across a number of disciplines. That is something that the university prides itself upon. I was pleased to be able to sit with Robyn Beaman's extremely proud family. They are all local North Epping people, three generations of them. To see Robyn graduate today and speak to the graduates was a moment of great pride for the family. It is certainly something I will not forget. I wish everyone at Macquarie University well. In my 19 years in Parliament it has been a delight to be associated with them.
LUGARNO LIONS SPRING FESTIVAL
Mr KEVIN GREENE (Georges River) [6.10 p.m.]: Last Sunday the Lugarno Lions Spring Festival was held in Gannons Park in my electorate. The festival is a major annual event in the local community, and it has grown exponentially. This year it attracted approximately 25,000 people. I congratulate the Lugarno Lions Club President, Bill Penfold, and the club members on their work in organising the festival not only this year but also over the many years of its fine history. This year the chairman of the festival was Kevin Reid. His team had well in excess of 100 stallholders to manage on Sunday. The stallholders were co-ordinated by Wayne Bollinger. I mention particularly Bruce Hudson, who had the task of organising the layout of the stalls, as well as the various rides and community organisations that set up in Gannons Park for the festival.
This year Graham Gorman did an enormous amount of work in co-ordinating the classic car and bike show, which is very much a central part of the festival. On the day hundreds of cars were on display, including Mustangs, Holdens, Fords, Chevrolets and Mini Minors, together with many bikes from the Norton Bike Club. I had an opportunity to present prizes to the winners of the car and bike show. A local resident, Bob Young, again won the bike category with his Velocette. This year's festival was widely promoted, and for that I congratulate Tony Alifano and his team on their publicity work.
In the weeks leading up to the Lugarno Lions Spring Festival I attended a number of functions involving teenagers; they were talking about their need to attend the festival. That is the sort of reputation the festival has gained in our local community. Tony Alifano and his team got a lot of publicity. Again this year, the local community radio station, 2NBC, was very supportive and had given the event plenty of promotion. Its team was in attendance on the day and assisted with announcements and organised music. Plenty of entertainment takes place on 2NBC and the station continued that on the day, as did the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader in advertising the event. Yesterday's edition of that newspaper carried a number of lovely photographs of the event, and I thank and congratulate the newspaper on its support and sponsorship of this year's festival.
The event raised approximately $35,000 for the Lugarno Lions. But the event is not just about the income the Lions Club receives; it is also about the income that other community organisations that participated on the day raise as a result of the organisation by the Lugarno Lions Club. The festival is an opportunity for displays by community organisations. On Sunday representatives of the State Emergency Service and NSW Police were in attendance. Yesterday I spoke with Senior Sergeant Rick Simpson, who commented that the spring festival has become similar to the local shows that are held in various country towns through New South Wales.
Representatives of the Georges River Community Service were present and they organised the sale of drinks. The Saints Family Network, another local organisation, was selling second-hand books. The Illawong Rural Fire Brigade provided sausage and steak sandwiches and assisted with catering on the day, as did the number one soccer club in the St George District, the Forest Rangers club. Tim Hooper and his troops from Forest Rangers attended in their impressive green T-shirts and provided a first-class barbecue. One event that has taken off as part of the festival is the Boggywell Creek race, a bottomless boat race. It was great to know the funds raised from this year's race went to Sailability, an organisation that assists people with disabilities to get out on the water and sail. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2001
Howard Courtney from that organisation made a great contribution and ran a raffle. I hope they made plenty of money, because they are opening their new facility at Kogarah Bay Sailing club on 30 September. The young Narwee Rovers and Venturers assisted with the cleaning up on the day. A lot of work goes into organising an event, but a lot of work also goes into cleaning up. I congratulate the Venturers on that. I acknowledge also the contribution by Oatley Lions and Hurstville Lions. The Oatley Lions Festival is to be held on 21 October, and I wish them well. [Time expired.]
BOGGABRI HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE MULTI SERVICE OUTLET
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.15 p.m.]: Last week I had the good fortune to spend a day in the community of Boggabri, where I visited both of the local schools, and was privileged to witness a re-enactment of how Boggabri was discovered performed by children from the Sacred Heart Catholic School, followed later in the morning by the year 1-2 children at Boggabri Public School performing a wonderful rendition of Waltzing Matilda. They had the most incredible jumbuck. I was very impressed by the quality of the teachers and staff of both organisations, and was pleased to meet some wonderful parents as well. While in town I toured the multipurpose services, meeting both hospital and ambulance staff. I then drove out the Boggabri to Manilla road with Councillor Ken Bates to view some sections that are in dire need of tar.
However, tonight I would like to inform the House about how the Boggabri Home and Community Care Multi Service Outlet [HACC MSO] provides an excellent example of a rural community organisation delivering a vital service for a country community, despite limitations in funding. Boggabri is a close-knit community of some 900 people located between Gunnedah and Narrabri. The HACC MSO has only one paid employee, Noreen Boehm, who co-ordinates Meals on Wheels, community transport, domestic assistance and social support to frail aged people with disabilities and their carers across the district, with an average of 58 individual clients receiving one or more services. The service has an enthusiastic volunteer management committee of community members and clients. Assisting Noreen and the committee is a small army of some 70-plus people from the local area.
I am particularly impressed by Noreen's commitment to ensure the service meets the needs of its clients. While employed for only 26 hours per week, Noreen often works up to 20 additional hours per week voluntarily. She is the driving force behind this service, developing it into a highly respected, efficient and effective operation. Noreen has recently completed a Certificate IV in Lifestyle and Leisure, she has been a State Meals on Wheels delegate for two terms, and is currently President of the New South Wales Meals on Wheels Board of Governors. She recently demonstrated her expertise during a 30-minute presentation detailing "Innovations in New South Wales Meals on Wheels" at a State conference in Queensland.
While Noreen's leadership of the service is clearly first-rate, she is always quick to point to the contribution of the volunteers. Under their joint stewardship Boggabri has been asked by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to pilot many projects before they are incorporated into the mainstream. In 2003 Boggabri recorded the highest accreditation score in the New England region, and in 2006 it was asked by the department to pilot the integrated monitoring framework process for all multiservice outlets in New South Wales. In addition to volunteers' designated tasks, they assist clients with newsletters and menu collection. They attend meetings, forums and conferences. The volunteers have undertaken training and information sessions on computerised financial techniques, occupational health and safety, risk management, confidentiality and privacy, effective communication with clients, day centre activities, and mental illness.
As with any community service group in rural New South Wales, the Boggabri HACC faces many challenges, with funding being its foremost challenge. While Noreen's commitment to the service is admirable she cannot be expected continually to take on so much unpaid but vital work. In her first five years with the service Noreen did not take a single day's holiday, and with ever-increasing demands placed on HACC she deserves assistance. Growing government red tape is bogging down the HACC with procedure, taking up valuable time that could be better spent in the community. Last year the Boggabri HACC received $68,000 in DADHC funding. Noreen estimates that a further $45,000 is needed to employ an additional part-time staff member and set up an essential day care activity program. Last year, without any assistance from the Government, Noreen and her volunteers raised $62,000 to purchase a 10-seater wheelchair accessible bus. That was made possible by donations from Idemitsu Coal Company, Wicking Trust in Victoria and countless donations and support from Boggabri locals who got behind this worthwhile cause.
The finding of additional volunteers looms as a significant problem for the service. Even with the 75 volunteers who are currently on the books many people are not always available. With an average age of 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
70 some volunteers are approaching the time when they will become clients themselves. One notable volunteer is a 90-year-old lady who is still delivering meals on wheels. Young people in Boggabri juggle work and family commitments that leave them with little time to volunteer, threatening the service in coming years. I urge anyone with a little spare time to consider putting forward their names and helping Noreen and her group of volunteers to deliver this wonderful service.
The Boggabri HACC MSO provides an invaluable service that is effective, efficient and appropriate to the needs of its clients and the community. I have been invited to discuss with members next month the many issues that are facing Boggabri HACC. I look forward to being able to work closely with that group to help it in its future endeavours and to obtain assistance from the State Government. Home and community care services, which offer a great fillip to members of our community, deserve the community's support. I urge people with a bit of spare time to put up their hands to engage in this volunteer work as they might be the next people to benefit.
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.20 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for bringing this wonderful service to the attention of the House. The honourable member for Tamworth, an active and passionate advocate for his community, acknowledged that the important work of community volunteers keeps the fabric of our society together. I know that the honourable member supports volunteers as he has often told me about the work that they do in his area. He told me that he believes his electorate has the most active volunteers in New South Wales and he is proud of them.
UNE PARTNERSHIPS
Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [6.21 p.m.] UNE Partnerships is a major success story in the Northern Tablelands. UNE Partnerships, the commercial arm of the University of New England, Australia's oldest regional university, is one of Australia's leading registered training organisations for vocational and professional education and training in the workplace. In 1989 the company started off as a technology transfer centre commercialising the university's research products in the marketplace. By 1991 the company began providing in manageable bites individual units of study from degree programs, particularly for nurses and teachers upgrading from college to university degrees.
With the advent in the mid 1990s of the Australian quality training framework and the establishment of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board, the organisation seized the opportunity to become a registered training organisation. With strong roots in distance education and the University of New England as Australia's oldest distance education provider, UNE Partnerships was poised for a national presence. All the qualifications now on the scope of registration—over 100 in 2006—have mutual recognition across Australia. Participants in one training program range from 35-year-old to 45-year-old linesmen from TransGrid and miners from T-West and BHP in Western Australia to administrative staff across NSW Police local area commands and staff of Public Trustee offices across the State. They are developing skills in teamwork and supervision.
Upper-level leadership and executive development programs are delivered to Holden dealer principals who are developing new skills to run multimillion dollar businesses, Samoan public servants, chief executive officers of divisions of general practice across Australia, company directors and executives of major hospitals and area health services. A common project management methodology is taught across Centrelink and a number of government departments to increase efficiency and achieve good project outcomes, which are winning combinations. At the junior level UNE Partnerships has trained young administrative staff in machinery dealerships in the west of the State, medical receptionists in isolated medical practices, and staff in the centre of major cities, in banks, and retail and manufacturing organisations.
Everyone has an opportunity to progress to higher qualifications and they are doing so. They have gained confidence to study and apply their learning in the workplace and they want to go on. Many left school early, not having had a good experience with study. They are now finding that it means something and it brings about job satisfaction and a sense of achievement. From its base in Armidale in the imposing newly refurbished old Teachers College, UNE Partnerships is able to deliver this training to individuals and workplaces across Australia by distance education, public workshops in major cities and in-house seminars and coaching for corporate clients. These education programs are up-skilling the work force in supervisory, administrative and management roles and they are providing people across all sectors with financial, operational, business planning, compliance, communication, legal, and marketing skills. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2003
The client list reads like a who's who of Australian and international business—the National Australia Bank, Qantas, Honeywell, American Express, Centrelink, Allied Mills, Symbion medical centres, TransGrid, BHP, the NRMA, Holden College, Australian divisions of general practice and Vodafone, as well as small and medium-size business enterprises and government departments across rural and metropolitan Australia. All those clients are receiving services that are co-ordinated from this centre in Armidale. The programs provide thousands of individuals and their employers with the business and management skills to ensure business and organisational prosperity, compliance and succession.
Traineeships are also available for eligible participants and provide employers with government support for their staff in targeted skills development areas. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have been well represented in the training groups and also participants from isolated and disadvantaged communities. The Armidale office now employs 32 administrative and management staff and over 100 trainers and assessors are contracted across Australia to deliver services in education programs such as business administration, business management, frontline management, corporate governance, project management, practice management for medical and general health care, dental, veterinary and legal practices, medical reception, facilities management and a host of other courses. I commend UNE Partnerships for its service delivery.
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.26 p.m.]: The honourable member for Northern Tablelands is proud and happy to support UNE Partnerships, which seems to me to be a wonderful organisation. This is not the first time the honourable member has spoken about education in this House. He is a passionate supporter of government and non-government schools, TAFE, and his beloved university. The honourable member also promotes other registered training organisations that, along with community colleges, regulate the industry in a non-traditional and non-structured educational setting. People must be able to take advantage of any opportunity to further their education. For some people a structured and traditional learning environment is not the appropriate place, particularly if they have already entered their vocations. The use of registered training organisations such as UNE Partnerships produces successful outcomes not just for people in the Northern Tablelands but for all consumers. I am sure that such an innovative partnership will pay dividends for the university. I thank the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for bringing this most important matter to the attention of the House.
Private members' statements noted.
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (TRAVEL CONCESSION) BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marianne Saliba) left the chair at 6.29 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
DISSENT
Ruling of Mr Speaker
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.30 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Speaker's decision on 7 September 2006 to disallow a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and
(b) the Speaker's refusal on 19 September 2006 to disallow a question to the Deputy Premier.
(2) dissents from Mr Speaker's ruling of 19 September 2006 on the grounds of inconsistency and bias.
I will try to keep this simple. We, as a Parliament, often overcomplicate things. Our standing orders are important, notwithstanding the comments of a crossbench member to me this afternoon. The standing orders are the provisions that enable this place to function properly. Those provisions give all members, including Ministers, the rules under which this place is meant to operate. Those rules are fairly clear. When it comes to question time, which is clearly the major piece of theatre in any parliamentary day, we look to chapter 10 of the existing standing orders. Standing Order 135 relates to questions to Ministers. It states:
A Minister may be asked a question which relates to: 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
(1) Public affairs or
(2) Proceedings pending in the House for which the Minister has carriage.
On 7 September the honourable member for Gosford asked a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The question related to the preselection imbroglio in Newcastle, where the sitting member, Bryce Gaudry, is being denied the opportunity to recontest the seat for the Labor Party. A question was asked of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs because one of his staff members that day had taken the extraordinary step of writing as a ministerial staffer to the Newcastle Herald in defence of Bryce Gaudry.
The Leader of the House, not unexpectedly, took a point of order—the sort of point of order he takes when he thinks a Minister is not capable of answering a question himself—and argued that the question had no bearing on the Minister's portfolio responsibilities. I say to the Leader of the House that he knew full well that Standing Order 135 enables a Minister to be asked a question that relates to two issues: one, public affairs; or, two, proceedings pending in the House for which the Minister has carriage. Mr Speaker, your ruling was:
The honourable member for Gosford well knows that his question was out of order as it did not relate to a matter associated with citizenship or Aboriginal affairs.
In other words, Mr Speaker, you upheld the incorrect interpretation of the standing orders by the Leader of the House and you ignored Standing Order 135 (1). This occurred on the final sitting day before last week's parliamentary break. One of the first questions asked this week was directed to the Deputy Premier by the honourable member for Illawarra, who inquired:
What is the Government's response to concern about the administration of justice following the Epping preselection result, and related matters?
Mr Speaker, I took the point of order that you had ruled the previous sitting week that a similar question was not in order because it did not relate to a Minister's portfolio responsibilities. You ruled on this occasion, following advice from the Leader of the House:
As I understand the question, it related to the administration of justice following the preselection.
The least all members of this place should expect from you is consistency, yet we are not receiving it—and those two rulings make that clear. When it suits the Government's interests you are happy to disallow questions, as occurred in the case of the question directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who was clearly going to have to respond to a staff member's defence of Bryce Gaudry and the shabby way in which the Labor Party is treating him. Yet the next sitting day you were not prepared to uphold the same standing order—or at least to apply your misinterpretation of the standing orders in the same way.
Standing Order 135 could not be clearer. It makes it clear that Ministers can be asked questions in relation to public affairs and in relation to their portfolio responsibilities. But you have interpreted that standing order in two different ways on two sitting days, and you have done so in a way that indicates partiality and, quite frankly, bias on your part. I note that in the revision of the standing orders that is about to occur the issue will be made clearer with the addition of a third point regarding matters under a Minister's administration. I raise this issue because of the Opposition's ongoing concern about the way in which you are running this House. It is a concern that I believe has led to a deterioration of behaviour in this place, not because of a deliberate attempt by those on this side to disrupt the House but because of the enormous frustration with the way in which the House is being managed.
Mr Speaker, it is not as though you do not have form when it comes to showing partiality from the chair. In August we woke to newspaper reports about a Minister of the Crown being accused of selling shares and profiting from public housing, an incredibly major scandal that appeared on the front page of a newspaper. Buried on a minor page of another newspaper was a story about claims of branch stacking within a political party and allegations that this was leading to rezonings. Mr Speaker, which one of those matters did you refer to ICAC? Did you refer the one that related to a Minister of the Crown or did you refer the one that related to the internal machinations of a political party?
Mr Speaker, I regret to say, as I said publicly on that day, you stepped away from the Speaker's chair, you donned your political mantle, and you went to work for the Australian Labor Party. The least the Parliament should expect while you are in the job and sitting in that chair is a degree of impartiality in the treatment of members of Parliament. I do not plead special cause, I just plead for you to consistently uphold the rules. I plead 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2005
for you to leave the political mantle behind. You have moved out of the ministry, you have moved into the Speaker's chair, and the Opposition asks that you act accordingly.
The Opposition is not asking a lot, because the Government has a majority in this Chamber, which means that even when you get into trouble on occasions like this, the Leader of the House can use the numbers to ensure this dissent motion is defeated. But that is not the point. The point is, Mr Speaker, that you should at least attempt to uphold the standing orders as they are or as they will be after the present rewrite. That is simply not happening. I never thought much of the former occupant of the Speaker's chair, the former honourable member for Drummoyne, and I never thought I would hear myself say that your behaviour in recent times has actually outstripped his in the administration of this place. But you not only bring a degree of partiality and bias to the chair, you completely lack his humour, which allowed us to swallow his rulings.
The plea I make on behalf of my colleagues is simple: Standing Order 135 is clear and under it the question asked by the honourable member for Gosford of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should have been allowed. The question should not have been objected to by the Leader of the House. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should have been able to defend his staff member's intervention in the preselection woes in Newcastle in support of his current colleague, the honourable member for Newcastle. And at the very least, having made your ruling, on the next sitting day you should have ruled consistently with that considered ruling, and disallowed the question from the honourable member for Illawarra. But you allowed the question because it suited the political objectives of the Australian Labor Party.
That is it in a nutshell—and even members of the cross bench will understand it. If the rules are not applied evenly, members do not get a fair chance. I have to say that media commentators and members of the public are disgusted with the behaviour in this House, which largely relates to frustration. The Leader of House can jokingly refer to accountability and transparency but the Opposition knows that does not exist in government, let alone in this place. What makes it much worse for members of the Opposition, who are simply trying to do their job in holding the Government to account, is when, Mr Speaker, you do not properly interpret the standing orders and—I anticipate what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour might say—ensure that when points of order are taken, the member with the call sits down.
Those simple rules have evolved over 150 years and are meant to work well to allow members, regardless of their political persuasion, to have a fair go in this place. The Opposition argues that you should start to enforce the rules evenly and fairly so that members get a fair go. Then the standard of behaviour in this place might start to improve.
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [7.40 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am disappointed that he has attempted to politicise rulings made by the Chair.
Mr Peter Debnam: You are saying that with a straight face?
Mr CARL SCULLY: I am, because when the honourable member for Gosford asked his question he had the biggest grin, from ear to ear, I have seen. When he grins I can always tell he is doing something for a joke. He stood up and pointed his finger at the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and thought it was a big lark. He had no intention of that question ever being regarded as legitimate. His confected protest when it was ruled out of order was seen for what it was. It was an opportunity to simply put on the record a piece of bile that was written by a disgruntled member of the Australian Labor Party, I assume, or a former staffer.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: A staff member of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Disgruntled for various reasons.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: A staff member of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
Mr CARL SCULLY: It does not matter. A disgruntled person wrote a letter that was published in a newspaper. The purpose of the question was to repeat that letter; it was not to elicit information. Then the question asked for an opinion as to whether the Minister preferred the Premier, the staffer, or the people of Newcastle who support the honourable member for Newcastle. That is completely different from the question that was asked by the honourable member for Illawarra. She did not ask, "Please tell us all about the Epping Liberal preselection." 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has tried to project the impression that the question asked by the honourable member for Illawarra was all about the Liberal Party preselection. If it had only been that, the Government would have had to withstand the suggestion that it was not about matters which could normally be regarded as public affairs. The question was about the administration of justice, and the only relevance to the Epping preselection was that someone who currently holds a very high public office was selected to become the candidate for Epping. It is a tangential issue.
Mr Peter Debnam: A former member of the Labor Party. The problem is that he left the Labor Party.
Mr CARL SCULLY: No, we are talking about the legitimacy of the question. I am not talking about him today.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The legitimacy of the Speaker's ruling is what is being brought into question. The question related to concern the Government or the Minister may have in relation to the administration of justice following the Epping preselection. It was not, "Please tell us about all the details of the preselection." We are not interested in that.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: The Minister lied in this House today—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is openly flouting the standing orders. The House is debating an issue relating to the standing orders and the Leader of the Opposition disgraces the House by openly flouting them. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Police has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: The difference in the questions is quite clear. One question sought to elicit information from the Minister in relation to the administration of justice because of concerns raised that the person who was preselected in Epping is also the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions and is alleged to have done certain things in the conduct of that office.
Mr Peter Debnam: A former Labor Party member.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Whether he is a member of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party is irrelevant.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Did the Speaker make an appropriate ruling? I cannot see how the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can say that does not reflect on public affairs. Mr Smith is the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, and now happens to be the candidate for Epping. "Please, Minister let us know your concerns about the administration of justice." That clearly fits within the realm of public affairs. The honourable member for Gosford simply wanted to put this silly question, this bile about the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on the record, and the nonsensical question of "Do you prefer the Premier, the electorate office staffer, or the people of Newcastle?" "Public affairs" means affairs for which the Minister is individually or collectively responsible. That is why on occasions the Premier or other Ministers are unable to answer questions beyond the scope of their individual ministerial responsibilities and why the Deputy Premier was able to answer questions on the administration of justice.
The standing orders make it clear in my view that questions that relate to the individual or collective responsibility of Ministers in relation to public affairs are things about which they can be questioned. An opportunity to read out a screed that is just bile is not classified as public affairs. If the honourable member for Gosford had instead simply asked, "Please let us know whether you support the Premier, the electorate office staffer, or the people of Newcastle?" that is not a question about public affairs or matters for which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is either individually or collectively responsible.
Mr Andrew Fraser: It is in the paper; it must be a public affair. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2007
Mr CARL SCULLY: Just because something is in the newspaper does not mean it is a matter about which honourable members can question a Minister within the standing orders. Members have to ask a Minister something for which he is individually or collectively responsible.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Have you read Standing Order 135?
Mr CARL SCULLY: I will tell you, though it might surprise you, that no Minister is responsible for an article or letter that a person chooses to write to the Newcastle Herald expressing an opinion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Minister has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Members may want to ask a question of another member in his or her capacity as an individual member of Parliament. The standing orders enable members to question Ministers collectively or individually about their responsibility for public affairs, not about whether one of their staffers or ex-staffers wrote a nasty piece in a local newspaper and, therefore ask, "Do you like it? Do you agree with it or do you support the Premier?" The honourable member might want to direct that question to the Newcastle Herald, or to Ray Hadley, or to ABC Newcastle or wherever. That is his business. The question for the Speaker was: Is that an appropriate question relating to the collective or individual responsibility of Ministers that seeks to elicit information concerning public affairs?
These were two very sound rulings. I am offended, on your behalf, Mr Speaker, by a suggestion that the question asked by the honourable member for Gosford was ruled out of order because you formed the view that you did not want the Minister to be asked questions about internal party matters. It has nothing to do with the question of internal party matters. From time to time there may be matters that are very relevant and pertain to public affairs about which either the Government or Opposition is entitled to ask questions.
On this occasion this cannot, on the broadest definition of public affairs, be regarded as something for which the Minister is collectively or individually responsible. It was a good ruling, despite what the Opposition might like to think. I believe it has been with affected indignation that the member has reflected on one of the finest Speakers we have had with respect to a ruling that the member knows, if he were in government, he would regard as sound. He suggests that a question should not be asked about public administration by no less a person than the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, who, on our measure, has done something for which he should at least apologise. That raises big question marks about that public official. Given that he also happens to be the candidate for Epping, we are entitled to ask a question about that, and the Minister is entitled to answer it.
As Leader of the House I support the rulings that you made. I totally disagree with the opinions being put by the Opposition. I cannot see how the rulings you made on those two questions could, on any understanding of the standing orders, be regarded as unsound. I support the rulings and I will oppose the dissent motion.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [7.50 p.m.]: Mr Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to stand here this evening and support the dissent motion. On numerous occasions in this House you have made the comment to me—I do not know whether it appears in Hansard—"You know better. You know the standing orders." I do. I will not say I know them perfectly, but I read the standing orders, interpret the standing orders, and normally consult the clerks if I have a query in regard to them. When we read Hansard—despite the nonsense just uttered in this debate by the Leader of the House—we see that the question put by Mr Hartcher is about a staff member employed by a Minister. Standing Order 35 says:
A Minister may be asked a question which relates to public affairs.
The Leader of the House said that public affairs is not something that appears in a newspaper. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, on the day a Tripodi incident was reported, yet again, in the paper, you decided to refer a preselection battle to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, but not the Tripodi matter. Why did you refer that matter? Because it was a public affair; it was reported in the paper. So I would suggest to you that your ruling in that particular case was well and truly out of order. I quote you, Mr Speaker:
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The honourable member for Gosford well knows that his question was out of order as it did not relate to a matter associated with citizenship or Aboriginal affairs.
I do not believe that the honourable member for Gosford asked a question about the Minister's portfolio. I believe the question was clearly under Standing Order 135 (1)—a matter of public affairs. Let us look at the question asked by Marianne Saliba in this House. She asked: 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. What is the Government's response to concern about the administration of justice following the Epping preselection result and related matters?
Mr Speaker, you ruled that to be in order. But, you ruled out of order any points of order taken during the response given by the Deputy Premier, saying, "The question clearly is in order" et cetera. You said:
The question is clearly in order. It relates to the administration of justice. The Deputy Premier has the call.
Mr Speaker, I would ask that you read the response by the Deputy Premier, because nowhere in it does he mention the administration of justice. All he does is launch into a partisan political attack upon the candidate for Epping and the Liberal Party. You ignored every point of order that was taken in that debate, on the basis that the question was in order and it related to the administration of justice. If we had some equity in this place I feel sure that you would have informed the Deputy Premier that he was not answering the question. In fact, his was an absolutely undisguised attack on the Liberal Party and its preselection process. On numerous occasions over the years I have risen in the House—
Mr Carl Scully: Too many times.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: —on Standing Order 105. It normally relates to the person interjecting at the moment, the Leader of the House, refusing to be seated, as Standing Order 105 dictates, when a point of order is taken. I do not think you have once ruled in my favour under that standing order, which is pretty simple. In fact, today when I raised that standing order, you told the House—and Hansard will record it:
I will decide when a member sits.
Mr Speaker, it is not your decision to make, except in conjunction with the standing orders. The relevant standing order says that when a member rises to take a point of order, the member speaking shall sit, or be seated. Yet you told the House today that you will decide whether that standing order applies. That, to me, is partisan conduct. That, to me, underlines the reason for your claim about spurious points of order. We are finding it very difficult to get the truth from the Government, or to have the standing orders adhered to by those on the Government side of the House with you in the chair. It has got to the stage, I must admit, that I have spoken to a number of our members on occasion and said, "Yes, they are frivolous points of order." I do not sanction them, but I can understand why it happens.
Whenever I take a point of order, it relates to a standing order. Apart from, perhaps, one minor issue, I think I am yet to have you rule in my favour on a point of order, despite my citing the relevant standing order. I note in passing that I believe that the vast majority of members of this House either do not understand the standing orders or have not taken the time to read them. Mr Speaker, on numerous occasions during your Speakership, I have had students from schools in my electorate come into the Parliament. On many occasions you have welcomed them into your chambers and discussed with them the impartiality of the Speaker. I draw your attention to a document that is available in the foyer of the Parliament entitled "The role of The Speaker and other Members in the House". Under "The Speaker" it says:
The Speaker is the Presiding Officer of the Legislative Assembly and as such must act with both authority and impartiality. The Constitution Act describes the Speaker as the Legislative Assembly's "independent and impartial representative".
It goes on to say:
In maintaining order the Speaker interprets and applies the Standing Orders and practice of the House by making rulings and decisions.
It also says:
By custom, the Speaker does not participate in debates and only has a casting vote …
It says further:
A decision of the Speaker may only be challenged by a motion of dissent.
It has got to a stage tonight that we on this side of the House have decided to challenge one of your decisions by moving dissent. The reason we have chosen to dissent from one of your decisions is that your conduct is partial. Many videos of question time in the House show that you have taken instruction from the Leader of the House, 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2009
the Government Whip or the Premier. When a point of order is taken or a question is put the video shows the Leader of the House or the Premier saying, "That question is out of order" and you immediately so rule. Yet when a legitimate point of order was taken on the question asked by the honourable member for Illawarra, which was a bashing exercise against the Liberal Party, you ruled immediately in favour of the Government.
The hypocrisy of your rulings is outstanding. Decisions from the Chair are published and circulated to all other parliaments operating under the Westminster system. Some of the decisions you have made make us look stupid. But, more importantly, they demean the office you hold. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, we suffered long and hard under Speaker Murray. When Speaker Murray ruled us out of order at times he did it with some mirth, knowing full well that his decision was not within the standing orders.
Unfortunately, the way you apply the standing orders, at times blowing your cool and making dictatorial statements such as the one you made today, "I will decide", shows partiality and shows that you are not applying the standing orders appropriately. That gives us just reason and cause for moving this dissent motion. I do not take pleasure in speaking to the motion, but if you wish to maintain order in the House and if you wish to have some form of discipline from the Opposition, equity and impartiality in applying the standing orders is the way to go.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.00 p.m.], in reply: Five hours ago you said in his place, "I will decide what happens in this Chamber." That statement is the reason for our concern about your administration of the Chamber. The standing orders determine what occurs in the Chamber and it is your job, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said, to apply the standing orders equally to the benefit of all members of the Chamber, regardless of political allegiance. The defence of you by the Leader of the House was tendentious. In his words it hinges on the nature and intent of the question posed by the honourable member for Illawarra, which was, as the Minister described, a question about the administration of justice following the Epping preselection. The Minister may well have had a case if in his response the Minister for Transport had once mentioned the administration of justice in New South Wales, even if he had once mentioned the word "justice".
Yet, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said, no such reference was made. Bile poured out of the Minister for Transport's mouth when referring to the Epping preselection, upper House pre-selections and the Southern Highlands pre-selection. It was the most wilful breach of standing orders I have seen, short of today's breach of standing orders by the same Minister in relation to a question that had added at the end "and related matters". If the point of order had been upheld on the same basis upon which your ruling the previous sitting day had been made we would not have had the spectacle of the Minister flouting the standing orders yesterday, and we may not have had the spectacle of the Minister flouting the standing orders today. All we are seeking from this dissent motion is a degree of fair application of the standing orders to both sides of the House.
The second point of defence of the Leader of the House, which was that you gave two very sound rulings—one on 7 September and one on 19 September—was novel, given that the rulings are diametrically opposed. But that is the sort of argument one expects from the Leader of the House and his predecessor, who at least did it with a great deal of more mirth. This is the first dissent motion that we have moved against you. It is not a decision that has been taken lightly, but it is a decision that was born of frustration. We know how the vote will go, but it is important on behalf of all members of the House, including our colleagues on the crossbenches, that we attempt to stand up for the fair application of the standing orders. Our argument could be put in these terms:
[You have] displayed great partiality in favour of Government members; improperly applied Standing Orders to protect Government members from Opposition criticism; sought to intimidate and insult members of the Opposition in the discharge of their duties, and frequently conducted himself as an implement of the Labor Party.
Those words reflect some of the feelings and frustrations of those of us on this side, but what is interesting about those words is that they date back to a dissent motion moved by the Opposition against the Speaker in 1952. The Government of the day had elected a Speaker and lost its majority on the floor of the House. The House had two crossbench members, one of whom moved a motion calling for the abolition of the upper House, which was consistent with Labor Party policy, but not consistent with what the Premier of the day wanted to do.
To thwart the democratic rights of a member of this place to use the standing orders to move a motion, during question time the Speaker threw out two members of the Opposition, the Hon. Eric Willis and Harry Turner. He threw out Willis without three warnings and he threw out Harry Turner, who was known throughout both his Federal and State careers as "silent Harry", who had not even spoken—to give the Government a majority when the motion was debated. But it got better, because when the Independent member Geraghty 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
moved the urgency motion, the Attorney General took a pre-arranged point of order and the Speaker ruled the urgency motion out of order.
As we all know, in this day and age matters of urgency are decided not by the Speaker but by the House. On that occasion Murray Robson moved a dissent motion against the Speaker, and it captures exactly the sense we have here. When you look towards the camera and when you look to the right of the clock I hope you are reminded of William Henry Lamb, who had the reputation of being the worst Speaker we have had in 150 years. He is the Speaker who even the Labor Party gave up on in the end because he was hopeless. We do not want your name up there in that spot to remind future occupants of the chair how they should not behave. We would far prefer you to spend the remaining six months of your job in the chair upholding the standing orders of this place, and providing a lesson to the people on both sides who will continue in this place as to how the standing orders should apply. We do not need to prolong the debate. It is an important issue that relates not to partiality on our side but to the impartiality of the Chair.
The necessity for the Chair to protect the interests of all members—that pledge, that oath, that commitment that is given when a member of this place or any other Chamber is first elected to the Speaker's chair—goes back to the mother Parliament at a time when speakers who did not act in accordance with their pledge could lose their heads. You will not lose your head. You will not even lose the division. But as a result of the division and as a result of members of the Opposition having to formally raise their concern about your inconsistency, your bias, and your failure to uphold the interests of all members of this place, I hope you take a lesson out of this debate and improve the way in which you uphold the standing orders.
I am happy to give a commitment that the sooner you start doing that the sooner I am prepared to abide by the intent of the standing orders as well. As I said at an earlier meeting this evening and as I say now publicly, you cannot expect members of the Opposition to abide by the standing orders if you are not prepared to apply the standing orders equally to members of the Government who flout them, or if you continue to show partiality and bias in the administration of the standing orders.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 26
Mr Aplin Mr Humpherson Mr Roberts Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Ms Seaton Ms Berejiklian Mr McTaggart Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Pringle Mr Maguire Mrs Hopwood Mr Richardson Mr R. W. Turner
Noes, 49
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Greene Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Ms Hay Ms Saliba Mr Barr Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Mr Scully Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Torbay Mr Chaytor Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Mr Mills Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Moore Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Tellers, Mrs Fardell Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2011
Pair
Mr George Ms D'Amore
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Precedence of Business
Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that Government Business take precedence of all other business for the remainder of this sitting.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the Chair. I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order. Members will resume their seats.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (APPREHENDED VIOLENCE) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [8.20 p.m.]: I note that the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill has been introduced in response to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's report on Part 15A of the Crimes Act 1900. The Government claims to have consulted government agencies, departments and community organisations in its preparation of this bill. The Coalition recognises that it is by far time that the laws relating to apprehended violence orders were updated.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! Members wishing to have conversations should leave the Chamber.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 in a series of ways. The reason I participate in this debate is because domestic violence is an issue that impacts very seriously on my electorate. I am sure that members of this Parliament have received representations from individual citizens of various backgrounds over their concerns relating to domestic violence. The bill provides for a new definition of "domestic relationship", which includes indigenous kinship concepts and clarifies the definition of "other residential facility" to ensure that definition does not apply solely to gaol-type facilities such as correctional facilities or juvenile justice facilities. The bill expands the definition of "intimidation" to include technological means and refines the definition of "stalking".
In 1998, in Goulburn, a 16-year-old girl, Adele Smith, was tragically shot and killed while a patient at Goulburn Base Hospital. At that time that was quite big news, as honourable members would imagine. The news stories of the day documented that Adele had been stalked and security was so lax at Goulburn Base Hospital that a former acquaintance of the young girl had managed to get into the hospital and shot her as she lay in her hospital bed. It was a particularly abhorrent, vile crime. Also, at Goulburn Base Hospital medical staff had to endure harassment over many years, particularly in the emergency department, and that has been well documented in the past.
In June 2000 a front-page report in the Goulburn Post revealed that doctors and medical staff at the hospital were continually subjected to assaults and aggressive behaviour. The hospital even sought an apprehended violence order against a repeat offender who had assaulted and harassed staff. This is serious stuff; this is a public institution, a public base hospital. For that activity to be going on anywhere, let alone in a public institution such as a hospital, is quite unforgivable. The hospital manager at that time, Don Colquhoun, was reported as saying, "There appears to be an increase in antisocial behaviour which is affecting the ability of hospital staff to provide a safe environment for their employees, visitors and patients." 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
In June 2001 a fire was discovered in Goulburn Base Hospital's laundry chute, believed to be of suspicious origin. Goulburn Base Hospital is located next door to the major mental health unit for the southern region, the Chisholm Ross Centre. Several years ago I raised in this House my significant concerns at the lack of security measures in place for medical staff, patients and visitors at those two centres. It took a really long time before the Government finally committed to security measures at Goulburn Base Hospital. Despite Adele's murder, in 2001 the sorts of responses we received from the Southern Area Health Service to the questions of whether the service would employ security guards at the Chisholm Ross Centre and the Goulburn Base Hospital and would ensure 24-hour security, or consider duress alarms and/or closed circuit television, were published in a Goulburn Post article by Lyn Terrey, dated 6 July 2001.
At that time Bill Dargaville, who was the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Southern Area Health Service, gave the most bureaucratic reply I have ever heard in my life. He said absolutely nothing, he did not cover whether the security guards would be put in place. He gave the biggest fob-off one would ever hear and I want it recorded in this place. The article by Lyn Terrey quotes Mr Dargaville as stating:
We have a number of mechanisms in place such as Occupational Health and Safety committees and regular security inspections which help to identify any areas where more work needs to be done.
A number of improvements have been made in the past as a result of combined involvement of staff and managers who are working together to identify and address any issues.
The article continued:
Mr Dargaville said the Minister for Health had recently been campaigning— big deal—
to educate the community that violence against nurses in NSW hospitals is unacceptable.
"We support the work the Minister is doing in this area. Nurses, particularly those working in busy emergency departments should be able to work without being fearful for their safety," Mr Dargaville said.
Well, yes, we know that. The article continued:
"Unfortunately sometimes when people are distressed, intoxicated or ill they act aggressively and take it out on those people around them who are trying to help.
But we were trying to find out from Mr Dargaville how he would help solve that situation. He continued:
"On the whole our nursing staff are very skilled at working with anyone who walks through the Emergency Department door.
Yes, we know that, they are extremely capable nurses at Goulburn Base Hospital and always have been and always will be. The article continued:
"From time to time staff are subject to unacceptable behaviour from patients and because of this a number of measures are in place to reduce risks", he said.
"Staff throughout the area are able to access training on managing aggressive clients and many highly skilled and experienced nursing staff are involved in delivering care, particularly to those patients or clients with problems that make them more likely to act aggressively. In addition, facilities throughout the area had a range of security measures in place to provide additional protection for staff.
Rubbish! The article continued:
"The majority of our facilities are patrolled by private security firms and some have closed circuit cameras in place or use duress alarms."
Mr Dargaville said security guards were not being considered by the area health service at this time because other options, some of which are already in place, are seen as providing better security for patients, their families and staff.
Is it any wonder that people were so frustrated with the Southern Area Health Service when that sort of response was received from the acting chief executive officer when a young girl was murdered in her hospital bed. The rubbish that the bureaucrats were coming out with was absolutely atrocious. It is no wonder that Bill Dargaville did not last in that service. Other parts of this much-needed bill are coming into play. The bill expands definitions of personal violence offences to encompass more offences and provides that a court will be able to grant an apprehended domestic violence order [ADVO] in certain circumstances where a victim claims to no 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2013
longer be in fear but when there is a history of personal violence and a likelihood that the defendant may commit personal violence offences against a victim.
I turn now to the very tragic loss of another lovely young Goulburn lady, Rachael Young. Honourable members would remember Rachael's death recently. The Goulburn Post and the Sydney metropolitan press reported the tragedy. On 26 June 2006, an article by Merran Hitchick in the Goulburn Post explained how Rachael Young, a young Goulburn mum who worked at the local tobacconist in the Centro Mall with Wayne Eddy, had taken out an apprehended violence order against a fellow. He turned up and shot her, then shot himself in a side street in Goulburn, in front of her two young children, who were then put into the care of relatives. That sort of thing just should not happen. It is sad and tragic when it does as it impacts on the entire community.
I refer to another event that occurred in June this year. A man and woman were shot dead on Coromandel Street in residential Goulburn. It was unclear at the time whether or not it was a double murder or a murder suicide, but either way there are serious domestic violence issues in our community. Goulburn is a safe place in which to live. I walk around the streets of Goulburn at night and I have no problems when I do that, but I am not living in a situation where I think my life might be threatened. Domestic violence is a significant issue in rural New South Wales where police resources are strapped. The other day I called Coffs Harbour police on behalf of a friend of mine who had a problem. The response that I received was that police could not attend to the problem immediately because all their resources were dealing with domestic violence cases.
Police do not want to deal with domestic violence but it is part of their job. How can we make it easier for them to fulfil a part of their job that is not particularly glamorous or nice? There is no doubt about the fact that we need more police on the ground. We must ensure that they have adequate resources and motor vehicles in which to get around. We must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of personnel in various rural police stations so that they can do their job of catching criminals and resolving domestic violence issues in a timely and caring way. A victim's reluctance to make an application for an apprehended domestic violence order [ADVO] is not in itself a reason for police not to make an application for an order in circumstances where violence has occurred, there is a threat of violence, or where the victim is a person with an intellectual disability who has no guardian.
A significant provision in the bill will establish that telephone interim orders will be available on a 24-hour basis in circumstances where the police officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection. That is great news, especially for country people who are short-staffed on police. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Gosford, who has responsibility for this bill, indicated that the Opposition would move an amendment in the Legislative Council to seek to enhance this provision so that police will not be limited to only providing interim 24-hour apprehended violence orders [AVOs] when the officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection. The Opposition will seek to add the words "or where there is an immediate threat of violence on the part of the person against whom the AVO is being made". It will be a good thing if people could obtain 24-hour AVOs.
In the past when somebody has been a victim of domestic violence he or she has had to go to the police station with the accompanying officer—if the officer attended the domestic violence scene in the first place, which is what happens in many cases. The victim has had to go to the police station, make a statement, and wait for the offender to turn up at court. If the offender does not turn up cases could be delayed. Offenders have been known to check themselves into mental units voluntarily in order to escape court proceedings. In the past it has taken a long time to get some cases through the courts to enable victims to obtain AVOs.
Many people to whom I have spoken about this aspect of the bill, in particular those who do not have the policing resources that are available in metropolitan areas, would love the ability to make a phone call and obtain a temporary 24-hour AVO. This provision is good but it needs to be strengthened. I support the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments to those provisions. Once a telephone interim order has been made the matter must be listed for hearing within 28 days, which is a good provision. [Extension of time agreed to.].
People in rural areas have experienced delays while waiting to get into the court system. Delays such as that are enough to put off the bravest person. The bill also provides police officers with the power to detain or arrest a person against whom a telephone interim order is sought for the purposes of serving a copy of the order, I imagine much in the same way as a sheriff goes to the home of someone who has an outstanding fine. The bill also provides that proceedings relating to AVOs are to be closed to the public if they are for the protection of a child under the age of 16 years, unless the court directs otherwise. 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
A child who is a witness or a person in need of protection is not required to give evidence unless it is in the interests of justice to do so. If a variation of an ADVO is sought where one of the protected persons is a child under the age of 16, the applicant seeking that variation must be a police officer, which seems to me to be a sensible move. The bill also establishes that where a person who is an alleged victim of a prescribed sexual offence is required to give evidence in proceedings relating to an apprehended violence order where the defendant has been charged with the offence, that evidence can be given by way of closed-circuit television facilities or screens.
It can be very intimidating for a victim who has been attacked to appear in court with his or her attacker. Quite often, when appearing in court, the victim and the attacker might be only a couple of metres away from one another and a wry look from an attacker can be very intimidating to a victim. I fully support the Opposition's proposed amendments. It would be a good thing if victims had less contact with their attackers. Victims need time to recover from their ordeal. An application process will replace the complaints and summons process, in accordance with part 6 of the Local Courts Act. An AVO will now remain in force for 12 months instead of six months. I believe the period used to be two years but 12 months should be the minimum period.
Ancillary property recovery will be able to be made to enable the retrieval of property of a person protected by AVO or the defendant under such an order. A court, when considering whether to make an apprehended personal violence order, or after making such an order, will be able to refer the parties to mediation. The bill will revise and make consistent restrictions and prohibitions that may be imposed on a defendant for both interim and final orders. As I said earlier, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Gosford, foreshadowed that the Opposition in another place will be moving two amendments to this bill. The first amendment relates to the court not being able to approve an AVO if both parties are involved in unresolved proceedings in the Family Court. Obviously there is extreme tension when families have to deal with proceedings in the Family Court.
I support the honourable member's foreshadowed amendment. The other amendment relates to 24-hour AVOs, a matter to which I referred earlier. I do not oppose this legislation. It is time that there was an update to apprehended violence orders. We must protect the innocent and vulnerable members of our community, whether they are mentally or physically impaired, or whether they are members of our community who are less confident of themselves and therefore more likely to become victims of attacks by people they know, by people they do not know, by people they meet once or twice, or by people with whom they have had a friendship or with whom they have been involved in some other way. It is a time that we as parliamentarians sought to fully protect those people.
I said earlier that it is well and good to have this system in place but we must also ensure we have as many skilled police in as many areas as possible so that they can cope with ever-increasing levels of domestic violence in our communities. Many domestic violence incidents relate to alcohol abuse. The police must be able to continue their normal duties of arresting drink drivers, catching robbers and solving murders and other crimes. We must resource our police more extensively with the skills and knowledge they require to deal with situations such as those that we have mentioned in this debate. There must be sufficient numbers of police personnel to maintain law and order and to address crimes of a more sensitive nature relating to violence in the home.
Mr ALEX McTAGGART (Pittwater) [8.40 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill. Domestic violence is an enormous issue in our community, affecting hundreds of thousands of people—more than 90 per cent of them are women—every year. On the northern beaches, after malicious damage domestic violence is the next most prevalent crime. So anything that strengthens the legislation dealing with this problem is welcome. Apprehended violence orders [AVOs] are only one small step in the process of addressing what is a major and tragic problem, but they are obtained only after the violence or threats have taken place and it seems to me far too little is being done to prevent that happening in the first place.
Nonetheless, AVOs are an important step in the process. In many cases they are enough to keep an offender away from his chosen victim, although it is acknowledged that they have no effect on the pathological abuser who does not care about circumstances and consequences. But if AVOs are to be effective, they have to be enforced. There is no doubt we do not have the police resources to follow up on every single breach. In fact, an ongoing complaint about AVOs is that those who breach them are never gaoled, despite threats by the authorities to do so. This legislation does not address that aspect of this major problem but it does increase the protection that AVOs provide for women in danger by broadening a range of definitions so that more women at risk are covered. For instance, the definition of domestic relationship for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders now encompasses relationships based on kinship or the membership of an extended family. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2015
The bill also acknowledges that modern technology has opened up a whole new range of methods by which abusers can torment their victims, and makes it an offence to harass, intimidate or abuse through text messaging, emailing or other technologically assisted means. Such harassment will be an offence, and a person will be able to apply for an AVO to prevent it continuing. The bill also allows a court to make an apprehended personal violence order in cases where no domestic relationship is involved. That is a welcome initiative as perpetrators can extend their abuse to relatives and friends of their victim. Proposed section 562N is a new provision that allows a court to refer parties for mediation. It also sets out the circumstances in which a matter is not to be referred for mediation. That is extremely important because there are situations when confronting an abuser in a mediation process would be unbearably traumatic for a victim.
Proposed section 562O allows a police officer to apply for an interim AVO by telephone. That is another good measure, although we need more magistrates to be available at late hours. Proposed section 562Q sets out the circumstances in which a police officer investigating an incident must apply for an order. That is also a good measure. It should not be up to traumatised and frightened victims to apply for AVOs. There is also a new provision that allows ancillary property recovery orders to be made. That is a good provision as people who are forced from their home are also forced to leave everything behind and should not have to confront their abusers in order to get it back.
Proposed section 562ZG makes it an offence to contravene an apprehended violence order but contains a new provision that provides that the protected person is not guilty of an offence of aiding or abetting a contravention of the order. That, too, is sensible. A victim whose self-esteem is non-existent and who gives in to the persuasion and cajoling of a now contrite partner and agrees to see him or her again should not then be guilty of an offence. In most instances it is an enormous mistake—a triumph of hope over experience—and the victim should not be penalised because he or she has given in, almost always for the sake of the children or for financial reasons.
As I see it, this bill contains a number of excellent measures. It broadens definitions in relation to the circumstances in which AVOs can be issued. It allows police officers to seek orders by telephone. It opens the process to mediation and specifies the circumstances in which mediation is not appropriate. But my problem with all these changes, although well intentioned, is that they are reactive and we need to be far more proactive in preventing domestic violence, which is usually the result of smouldering tensions or issues within relationships. If we were to spend more on counselling and other preventative measures we might be able to reduce the incidence of domestic violence. For example, last week I attended the Lifeline Northern Beaches annual general meeting, at which the president announced that the organisation had to fundraise 92 per cent of its expenditure. That is not a good enough response from the State and Federal governments if we are concerned about prevention. In conclusion, I acknowledge the earlier contribution by the honourable member for Wakehurst and commend him for his commitment to the refuge on the northern beaches. I support his call for further funding.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.45 p.m.]: I agree with the honourable member for Pittwater that society must take more responsibility for violence in our communities. It is an enormous problem. The Riverina generally, and Wagga Wagga in particular, have the same problems that the honourable member outlined and which the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill seeks to address. The bill is a response to a report of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission into part 15A of the Crimes Act. The shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Gosford, and other speakers in this debate have outlined the details of the bill so I will not repeat them now. But I shall share with the House some statistics regarding apprehended violence orders [AVOs] and some questions that I placed with the relevant Ministers.
How many AVOs does NSW Police issue per annum? Comprehensive data can be found in the following tables detailing police numbers, private application numbers and total numbers of AVOs issued in New South Wales. According to the Federal parliamentary report "Every picture tells a story", 18,926 orders were granted in New South Wales in 2002. The Australian Bureau of Statistics "Personal Safety—Australia", Summary of Findings, revealed that 5.8 per cent of women, or 443,800 women, experience violence. While that may seem a small percentage, it is an enormous number of women. Some 94.2 per cent of women, or 7,249,400, did not experience violence. Some 10.8 per cent of men, or 808,300, experienced violence and 89.2 per cent of men, or 6,669,900, did not experience violence. Those statistics are important because they help people to understand the gravity of the situation and the importance of this legislation.
I posed other important questions to demonstrate the severity of the domestic violence problem. I asked how many AVOs had been issued in the Southern Wagga Wagga command. I was told that 19,467 domestic 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
AVOs and 6,075 personal AVOs—making a total of 25,542 AVOs—were granted in 2005. In the same year in the Murrumbidgee region 686 domestic AVOs and 400 personal AVOs were granted, making a total of 1,086. In 2005 in the Murray region 381 domestic AVOs and 170 personal AVOs were issued, making a total of 551. Section 562AI of the Crimes Act states:
A court may, on complaint, make an apprehended personal violence order if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has reasonable grounds to fear, and in fact fears:
(a) the commission by the other person of a personal violence offence against the person, or
(b) the engagement of the other person in conduct amounting to harassment or molestation of the person, being conduct that, in the opinion of the court, is sufficient to warrant the making of the order, or
(c) the engagement of the other person in conduct in which the other person:
(i) intimidates the person, or
(ii) stalks the person,
being conduct that, in the opinion of the court, is sufficient to warrant the making of the order.
In theory if the applicant or the police have a reasonable fear or in fact fears for the safety of the applicant the DVO or AVO is justified as an instrument of intervention. If an officer has reasonable fears for the applicant's safety the officer is taught that he must apply for an order. It is the concern of many that the reasonable requirement required in the Act is undeterminable and, therefore, if the applicant says or claims that they fear, that is sufficient grounds in practice. The reasonable test no longer applies in real terms, if it ever really did. The result is that sometimes unreasonable orders are placed without consequence to the applicant or justification against the defendant, who may lose a great deal in family law. The finding in the Federal report shows that evidence may not be available to the Family Court. Recently the Federal Parliament published a major document entitled "Every picture tells a story", which highlights deficiencies in the integration of State and Federal law. Have there been deficiencies identified in the system of issuing AVOs? The answer is yes. Paragraph 4.23 on page 71 of the Federal report states:
Often when … authority is aware that matters are proceeding in the Family Court they will decide not to investigate, leaving the question to that court to decide on the issues. However, the Family Court is not resourced to investigate such matters. The children involved then fall through the jurisdictional gaps.
Paragraph 4.22 on page 70 states:
Evidence about investigations by state authorities, if any, may or may not be available to courts deciding matters under the FLA depending on the priority given to the case by the state authorities …
Often no report of an investigation by state authorities is available to assist the court.
Legislation has been implemented federally as a result of the report and I ask what New South Wales has done, apart from introducing this bill, to integrate State legislation with the Federal legislation to ensure that a better system is available for families who are dealing with family disintegration. From day to day or week to week, each member of this House has been touched by constituents with claims against their partners and vicious custody battles for children. As a member representing a regional area I have to deal with such cases all the time. It is just dreadful. The intent of the bill is to try to resolve domestic violence problems. We despise such events and do not want them to happen. Many speakers have delivered passionate speeches about the need to have the bill provide some balance and protection to the most vulnerable in our community. Members of all political persuasions were represented in the exhaustive inquiry that resulted in the 27 recommendations in the Federal report. In evidence the Family Law Council said:
… the split of jurisdiction between the states and the Commonwealth over child and family law matters. We have taken as a given that the split will continue … We regard the split in jurisdiction as one of the most pressing matters affecting children in Australia. There is evidence suggesting that it can lead to terrible outcomes for children …
Justice Nicholson commented:
… There have been co-operative efforts between the states and the Commonwealth … in relation to the reference of powers over ex-nuptial children. I think there is still a significant amount of work that could and should be done to try to have the two systems operating more as a unitary system than we have at the moment. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2017
The State Government should put in more effort to ensure that the legislation integrates with the recommendations of the report and delivers outcomes for the families that are affected by the thousands of apprehended violence orders to which I just referred. I have asked the Minister a number of questions. I have researched them because this is an important issue that needs to be discussed in this place and put before a committee of this Parliament. The committee could look into better ways to integrate State and Federal legislation to ensure that fairer outcomes are available to everyone and that the most vulnerable in our community are protected. Children of such unions will then benefit from a system that provides fairness for all.
For some time I have been negotiating to establish an inquiry to deal with these matters. I do not want to score political points. I want the Minister for Community Services, the Attorney General and the Ministers' advisors to look beyond politics and short-term point scoring and to bring about change that will make the lives of children and families so much better. Family disintegration has dreadful consequences for families. I want better outcomes. I urge the advisers who are listening carefully to take on board what I have said and to urge their Ministers to bring about an inquiry that will deliver those outcomes. People should be given the opportunity to provide input so that any legislative changes will deliver those outcomes to which I have referred.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [8.58 p.m.]: The object of the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill is to repeal and re-enact part 15A of the Crimes Act 1900 following a review of that part by the Law Reform Commission. Part 15A deals primarily with apprehended violence orders by the Local Court, the Children's Court or authorised officers to protect persons from violence arising from domestic relationships or outside domestic relationships, that is, personal violence. The Government stated that it consulted widely with government agencies, departments and community organisations, as well as individuals, in relation to the bill. Hopefully, it had a great deal of information before it when it commenced its deliberations in relation to the bill.
The bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 to provide for a new definition of "domestic relationship" that includes indigenous "kinship" concepts and clarifies the definition of "other residential facility" to ensure that this definition does not apply to correctional facilities or juvenile justice facilities. It expands the definition of "intimidation" to include technological means. It refines the definition of "stalking". It expands the definitions of "personal violence offences" to encompass more offences. It provides that a court will be able to grant an AVO in certain circumstances where a victim claims to "no longer be in fear" but where there is a history of personal violence and a likelihood that the defendant may commit a personal violence offence against the victim.
The bill also amends the Act to provide that the victim's reluctance to make application for an AVO is not in itself a reason for the police not to make an application for an AVO, in circumstances where violence has occurred, there is a threat of violence, or the victim is a person with an intellectual disability who has no guardian. The Act is to be amended to establish that telephone interim orders will be available on a 24-hour basis in circumstances where the police officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection. It provides that once a telephone interim order has been made, the matter must be listed for hearing within 28 days. The bill provides police officers with the power to detain or arrest a person against whom a telephone interim order is sought for the purposes of serving a copy of the order.
The bill amends the Act to provide that proceedings relating to AVOs be closed to the public if they are for the protection of a child under the age of 16 years, unless the court otherwise directs. A child who is a witness or a person in need of protection is not required to give evidence unless it is in the interests of justice to do so. When a variation of an AVO is sought, and one of the protected persons is a child under 16 years, the applicant seeking variation must be a police officer. The Act is also amended to establish that when a person who is an alleged victim of a prescribed sexual offence is required to give evidence in proceedings relating to an AVO and the defendant has been charged with the offence, that evidence can be given by way of closed-circuit television facilities or screens.
The bill also amends the Act to provide that the complaints and summons process be replaced by an application process in accordance with part 6 of the Local Courts Act. It is to be amended also to provide that an AVO will remain in force for 12 months instead of six months when the court does not specify the period. Police can apply to vary an order, regardless of who made the initial complaint. The Act is to be amended also to provide that ancillary property recovery orders can be made to enable the retrieval of property of a person protected by an apprehended violence order or the defendant under such an order. There is also a new offence of contravening an ancillary property recovery order. The amendments will enable the court, at any time, when considering whether to make an apprehended personal violence order or after making such an order, to refer the parties for mediation under the Community Justice Centres Act 1983. The bill also amends the Act to revise and make consistent restrictions and prohibitions that may be imposed upon the defendant for both interim orders and final orders. 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
Members on this side of the House do not oppose the bill, but we will seek to amend it in the Legislative Council. One of those amendments will deal with the power of police to provide interim 24-hour AVOs when the officer making the application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection, or when there is an immediate threat of violence on the part of the person against whom the AVO is being made, and in one other area.
Although domestic violence is totally unacceptable to the community, it is far too common an event. As lawmakers, we must put forward any measures that will strengthen existing laws and send out to the community the message that domestic violence will not be tolerated. I am working very closely with a local group of stakeholders in relation to domestic violence. The group, the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Domestic Violence Network, which meets monthly in the Hornsby area, includes representatives of police, local councils and other local groups and individuals. I want to mention a relatively new group called the Domestic Violence Coalition and also the work of Northside Women's Services, which is run out of the Salvation Army offices in Chatswood. Its co-ordinator is Amy David.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Women's Legal Service and, under its banner, the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service. Josie Gregory is a person who stands out for her tireless efforts regarding domestic violence in the Hornsby area. She is in charge of the Domestic Violence Court Assistance Program, which is operating out of Hornsby court. I have had a number of occasions to ring Josie, at all sorts of hours, in relation to assisting women—and only women at this point, but I know men and children are subject to domestic violence. Josie is only too happy for me to call her at any time on her mobile to provide assistance for any person who is the victim of domestic violence.
I would like to reflect on my experience as a registered nurse working in accident and emergency departments, where many people severely injured as a result of domestic violence present. To this day I have vivid memories of some women who presented with massive injuries to their faces and other parts of the body. It was very distressing for the hospital staff who received those women, obviously in a crisis situation. Sadly, many of the injured women did not press charges and returned to the environment in which they were so at risk. Obviously, domestic violence can have emotional, social, physical and financial perspectives, and tragically some lives are destroyed in the process. Some 12 deaths in New South Wales have resulted from domestic violence. That has been noted by the Domestic Violence Coalition, which has worked extremely hard to bring these absolute tragedies to the notice of those who can make a difference to the circumstances in which these women and men find themselves. Red roses have not only been presented at the fence and gates of Parliament, they have also been taken to all offices of members of Parliament. Those are 12 deaths too many.
I would like to point out also that North Sydney court is in desperate need of a domestic violence court assistance scheme. It was not funded by the Government when its source of funding dried up, and I am informed it never has been funded by government. The Government should look at courts that need domestic violence court assistance schemes. At this point I would like to pay tribute to the difficult but invaluable role played by police. They are probably the first at the scene of a home where a domestic violence incident is either under way or there has been a victim of domestic violence. Police have a really difficult job in managing this issue. I take my hat off to them. I would like to read from a letter that Josie Gregory wrote to me today. I quote:
Subject: part 15A amendments
Whilst a number of improvements have been made to strengthen police powers in relation to ADVO matters the Bill would be more effective if it took a holistic, victim focussed approach. At the moment it is all about the defendant.
Priority needs to be given to the victim's long-term safety needs, legal and social, and their right to be involved in making crucial decisions about how these needs will be addressed by the justice system. As it is, Part 15A continues to support a directive approach by courts and police to apprehended violence orders. The fact that this directive approach is not working is highlighted in the high dismissal and withdrawal rates for ADVOs in Local Courts. Women need to be supported and engaged in the process, or they will fall between the cracks, placing them at risk.
Little attention is given in Part 15A to the interests of victims and their support networks. The legislation needs to support victims' right to be actively involved in the proceedings and to be able to make an informed choice about their safety needs. They can only do this if they are given access to independent legal advice, assistance with other legal and social welfare needs and support and information such as that provided by the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Program, at all stages of the proceedings.
I also have a letter from Karen Mifsud, supervising solicitor at the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service, Women's Legal Services New South Wales, which states:
Thank you for the opportunity to raise issues relating to the new AVO legislation with you. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2019
We support the majority of the changes made to the legislation. One section which is of concern to us is the proposed section 562ZZD—Variation of revocation of orders. This section provides that only the police can apply to vary or revoke an order if a child is named as a Person in Need of Protection on the order.
Often orders are made where a woman is the main complainant but the children are put on the order as well. These applications can be made by either the police or by a victim through the Local Court. If the main complainant is a child under 16, only the police can make the application. The proposed section does not distinguish between these situations. It will mean that if a woman who was the main complainant, but children are also named on the order, wishes to vary an order, for example to take account of changed contact arrangements or other circumstances, she will have to ask the police to make the application. The woman is then reliant on the willingness and the available resources of the police to issue the application. It also takes away power from a woman who is moving out of a domestic violence situation to organise her own affairs.
We would like to see the proposed section 563ZZD amended to say that where an initial application has been made by the police for the protection of a child, that only the police can apply for the subsequent order to be varied or revoked.
Further, as a child under 16 cannot make an application for an order themselves, they would not be able to make an application to vary an order themselves either, so an argument that the new section would remove the possibility of a child being influenced to apply for a variation or revocation, would not be applicable.
Karen Mifsud goes on to say that they will look very carefully at the Government's response to those issues. I am strongly in favour of any amendments that tighten up legislation dealing with domestic violence and apprehended violence. We must put in place measures that will protect our children and our citizens from this most abhorrent of crimes. It is disturbing to know that some incidents of domestic violence result in victims taking the law into their own hands. Nothing could be worse than a person who feels so trapped and feels that the authorities are not able to solve the problem becoming so desperate that that person ends the life of the perpetrator of the crime. We must be able to assist those people before they get to that point.
Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [9.12 p.m.]: I speak to the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill 2006. Apprehended violence orders are not new in law; they were part of the original crimes legislation, which has been in existence for many years. Courts have dealt with many applications for apprehended violence orders arising from either domestic or non-domestic situations. In many cases the circumstances leading to an application for a domestic violence order can be delicate and can ultimately have a lifelong effect on relationships. Apprehended violence orders are issued with caution and care when a person's welfare, safety and general wellbeing are at risk. We have heard of people suffering horrific injuries and even being murdered as result of domestic violence.
The bill amends the Crimes Act to provide circumstances in which apprehended personal violence orders and apprehended domestic violence orders can be issued. The bill redefines "domestic relationship" to include indigenous kinship concepts, and it clarifies the definition of "other residential facility" to ensure that it does not apply to correctional facilities or juvenile justice facilities. Technology has changed day-to-day living, and the bill redefines the traditional meaning of "intimidation" to include threats made indirectly and not necessarily in person. The bill redefines "stalking". It expands the definition of "personal violence offences" to encompass more offences. It provides that a court will be able to grant an apprehended domestic violence order in certain circumstances when a victim claims to be no longer in fear but where there is a history of personal violence and a likelihood that the defendant may commit personal violence against the victim.
In cases where a threat has been made or there is a fear that someone is likely to suffer harm the court will grant an interim order. However, when the matter comes on for hearing the circumstances may have changed and the applicant, either under cross-examination or by way of admission, may say that he or she is no longer in fear. If it is clear to the magistrate that the parties have had a long history of threats of violence and actual violence, and that subsequent harm could come to the applicant, a domestic violence order can be granted even though technically the applicant is no longer in fear. Some years ago when I was a practising solicitor, many applications for orders were refused because by the time the parties got to court things had settled down and the applicant was no longer in fear. Unfortunately, due to their history, the reality in many cases, sad as it was, was that they would be back before the court.
Under the provisions of the bill, a victim's reluctance to make an application for an apprehended domestic violence order will not itself be a reason for the police not to make an application in circumstances in which violence has occurred, when there is a threat of violence or when the victim is a person with an intellectual disability who has no guardian. Tragically, some people are frightened of applying for an apprehended domestic violence order or an apprehended personal violence order for fear of the consequences of taking the defendant to court. 2020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
A fear of the authorities becoming involved and provoking more threats is the reason that many matters do not reach the courts. The bill provides that when a victim of domestic violence is not prepared to proceed, the police nevertheless will be able to investigate the matter and proceed with an application for an apprehended violence order [AVO]. This provision provides for circumstances in which the alleged victim has made no specific request for an application or is reluctant to proceed with a request for an AVO.
The bill also provides for telephone interim orders to be available on a 24-hour basis in circumstances in which a police officer who is making an application has good reason to believe that a person requires immediate protection. This provision places a significant onus on a police officer to decide whether to seek an apprehended violence order. The issues determining whether an application is granted are traditionally a matter of balancing competing rights. The provision enables an applicant to have an interim protection order granted over the telephone at any time of the day or night. If an order is granted, subsequently the matter will be dealt with by a magistrate at a time when both parties are able to appear and give their version of events. It remains the duty of the magistrate to decide whether an order will be made; and when an order is made, the matter must be heard within 28 days of the date of the order. An interim order granted over the telephone will not be allowed to remain unresolved for an indefinite period. The defending party will have the opportunity of having the matter adjudicated by a magistrate.
The bill will also empower police officers to detain or arrest a person against whom a telephone interim order has been sought for the purpose of serving a copy of the order, and that provision is self-explanatory. When an order is served, the defendant is made aware of the nature of the accusations and is provided with an opportunity to address them. There are specific procedures relating to the protection of a child under the age of 16 years who is involved in legal proceedings. Usually cases involving children under the age of 16 years are heard in a closed court in an environment similar to the Children's Court, unless the court otherwise directs. A child who was a witness to a person in need of protection is not required to give evidence unless it is in the interests of justice for the child to do so. When a variation of an apprehended domestic violence order is sought and one of the protected persons is a child under 16 years of age, the applicant seeking that variation must be a police officer.
The bill also provides that a person who is an alleged victim of a prescribed sexual offence will be required to give evidence in proceedings relating to an AVO. When a defendant has been charged with the offence, evidence from the complainant will be able to be given by way of closed-circuit television facilities or screens. As I said, people are often reluctant to seek an apprehended violence order because of intimidation or a fear of retaliation as a result of the authorities becoming involved. [Extension of time agreed to.]
After people have initiated proceedings to obtain an apprehended violence order, they may not be prepared to attend a court and confront face to face the person who is the subject of the application. After all, in most courtrooms, the parties are only a matter of a metre apart from each other and in those circumstances applicants usually become quite nervous and fall prey to mind games played by the defendant. As a result, an applicant may lose confidence and become quite unable to present the facts of the case, thereby causing an application to fail. The bill provides that applicants for apprehended violence orders may give evidence by closed-circuit television facilities or screens, thereby obviating being in the immediate proximity of a defendant and consequently avoiding eye contact. Evidence being given by closed-circuit television to avoid intimidation is becoming a regular occurrence in some criminal trials, and it is a worthwhile procedure.
The bill provides that unless a court otherwise specifies an apprehended violence order will remain in force for 12 months. This provision repeals the current period of six months duration of an order unless otherwise determined by a court. The police may apply to vary an order regardless of who made the initial complaint. That provision is intended to apply to circumstances in which an applicant does not or cannot attend the court, necessitating police officers making an application in their place.
The legislation also provides that ancillary property recovery orders may be made to enable the retrieval of property of a person who is protected by an apprehended violence order or the defendant who is the subject of an order. There is also a new offence of contravening an ancillary property recovery order. When parties to a relationship have a falling out, such as a tenant who has a falling out with the owner of residential premises, difficulties may occur in the recovery of property when an apprehended violence order has been issued and the owner of the property has been excluded from the premises by the order. A conflict arises between possessory rights of an owner of property and the terms of the order that restrain or prevent threats, molestation or harm. In those circumstances an order may be made for the retrieval of property from the premises of someone who is protected by an apprehended violence order or by the defendant named in the order. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2021
The bill also allows a court, when considering whether to grant an apprehended personal violence order, or after making such an order, to refer the parties for mediation, in accordance with the Community Justice Centres Act 1983. Quite often the parties have never been before a court and their relationship has been very harmonious other than for the incident that now brings them before the court. Rather than have the formality of a court order being made, the matter can be referred for mediation under the Community Justice Centres Act, where they sit down and mediate and work out a settlement. No order is made.
Certainly a number of changes have been made with apprehended violence. Unfortunately, we are living in a far more violent society than in years gone by. People are involved in situations, whether domestic or otherwise, relating to violence and threats of violence whereby they are apprehensive that they are likely to be harmed by another person. It is quite appropriate that the law relating to such issues be amended. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.31 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate, even at this late hour of the evening. I also thank the many organisations and individuals who made thoughtful and intelligent submissions to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. The Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill was genuinely informed by the community's responses and views about the best way to ensure that the laws concerning apprehended violence orders are most effective. The bill constitutes the finest aspects of the proposals explored in the course of the Law Reform Commission's review.
I will address some matters that were raised in debate by honourable members. The honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Wakehurst asked about police issuing on-the-spot interim orders. The Law Reform Commission considered at length the notion of police issuing telephone interim orders. The commission suggested that where an authorised justice could not be contacted, a police officer above the rank of inspector could grant a telephone interim order, which would be in force for 48 hours. This issue was referred to the Apprehended Violence Legal Issues Co-ordinating Committee [AVLICC], the peak domestic violence consultation body in New South Wales, which comprises many different stakeholders, including police and domestic violence advocacy groups.
After careful consideration the AVLICC determined that a far better course would be to ensure that an authorised officer was available at all times. This would ensure that independence and objectivity would be maintained and that orders would be issued appropriately. Based on expert advice from the AVLICC, the bill introduces a 24-hour telephone interim order scheme to ensure that victims can avail themselves of immediate protection at any time of the day or night. An authorised officer of the court experienced in apprehended violence order [AVO] matters will issue the telephone interim order. This is a noteworthy feature of the bill.
Under the current system some courts have interpreted the section to mean that a telephone interim order should be available only outside of court sitting times or where distance precludes visiting a court; otherwise, an ordinary interim order must be sought. However, applying for an interim order may involve waiting at a local court for hours, which may not be feasible or desirable in situations requiring immediate action.
The availability of an interim order on a 24-hour basis will address those dilemmas. It is important to note that the court has an essential role in determining whether an AVO should be made and, if so, what conditions should be attached. This aspect of the justice process is important for all parties to AVO proceedings and reinforces the objective seriousness of domestic violence. As honourable members opposite noted in their contributions, this immediate access is extremely important. Amending the section in this manner will ensure immediate access to telephone interim orders and provide emergency protection for victims. Given that authorised officers will now be available on a 24-hour basis, providing police with a broad power to issue AVOs is not supported at this time.
The honourable member for Gosford asked whether the Federal Family Court and the State courts should both be involved in issuing AVOs, and he queried the ability of courts in each jurisdiction to effectively co-operate and communicate with one another. Earlier this year the Federal Government introduced the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act, which, among other things, remade the law governing the relationship between AVOs and Family Court orders. The Commonwealth simultaneously released the Family Law Violence Strategy, which aimed to develop co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States on those issues. 2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
The changes to the Family Law Act may have serious ramifications for women and children seeking protection from domestic violence under State court orders. As a result, the Government has referred the matter to the Legislative Council's Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The committee is tasked with conducting an inquiry into the Commonwealth's Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act with a specific focus on the consequences of the new laws for women and children at risk of violence. The results of that inquiry will inform any legislative amendments the New South Wales Government might consider to clarify the interaction of the jurisdictions in that regard.
The honourable member for Gosford said that AVOs appeared to focus upon women and that the women's resource centres or interested men's groups were not adequately consulted. I inform the House that thorough and comprehensive consultation was undertaken with women's resource centres. The centres are represented on the Apprehended Violence Legal Issues Co-ordinating Committee, which was heavily involved in deciding the details of the amendments in the bill. With respect to interested men's groups, the Law Reform Commission received submissions from men concerning the operation of the AVO system and the commission took their views into account.
It is very important to note that part 15A of the Crimes Act is not gender specific; the law applies equally to men and women. In enacting these laws, Parliament recognises that domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children. However, that does not mean that a woman in breach of an order will be treated differently from a man. It is an indisputable fact that domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children. That fact is recognised internationally and corroborated locally. That is not to say that men are never subject to domestic violence, nor that women never perpetrate it, but such cases constitute the minority.
The Law Reform Commission considered the question of vexatious applications and Family Law proceedings and found no evidence to support that claim: there is no empirical evidence to suggest that women are under the impression that AVOs impact favourably upon Family Law proceedings, nor that women deliberately manufacture false claims of violence for that purpose.
In considering what order to make the court must ensure that the parenting order is consistent with any AVO and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. Furthermore, in determining what is in a child's best interests the court must consider among other things any family violence involving, or any AVO that applies to, the child or a member of the child's family. It is not unusual for an apprehended domestic violence order [ADVO] complaint to be made at the same time as an application for a Family Law order. This does not mean that the former is made to gain advantage in the latter. Indeed, it makes sense for those two applications to be associated, given the number of ADVO applicants with dependent children and the fact that violence often escalates, and may even become fatal, at the time of separation, being the time when future parenting arrangements become an issue.
Ultimately, if a court finds that a complaint is frivolous, vexatious or without substance, it follows that the applicant will not have discharged his or her onus to establish that there are fears reasonably held, and the AVO will not be granted. I should add that if legal representatives are encouraging clients to make an application as a matter of course and in the absence of a legitimate fear details of the practitioner should be forwarded to the Law Society. That is extremely unethical behaviour.
The honourable member for Wakehurst noted that it would be preferable for police to have guidelines on how to deal with domestic violence situations and what services are available for victims in their area. I am happy to inform the House that New South Wales Police has comprehensive guidelines and standard operating procedures regarding domestic violence incidents. Further, each local area command has a domestic violence liaison officer, who is tasked with working with other police and ensuring that victims are referred to appropriate local services.
The honourable member for Wakehurst also raised the crucial issue of support services for women experiencing violence, and singled out the work of the Manly-Warringah Women's Resource Centre. I agree with the comments made about the work of that centre and note that representatives of the centre have made a valuable contribution to the reforms contained in this bill. The tireless work of refuge workers and other front- line staff throughout New South Wales deserves our highest commendation. It should be noted that in 2006- 2007 more than $30 million in funding was provided to 102 refuges to provide a safe place for victims to seek shelter and assistance. But, sadly, there is always more to be done. The Premier recently announced that the Government would develop new solutions to tackle the devastating consequences of domestic violence and reduce the level of this crime in our community. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2023
The bill is a first step in this strategy. The Government is currently examining all of the existing measures that deal with domestic violence. I can advise the honourable member for Wakehurst that the important role played by the Violence Against Women Regional Specialists is being considered in this context, with a view to offering regional specialists the best support for their work. I am advised that the full strategy, including new measures to address domestic violence, will be announced in coming months. The honourable member for Bligh noted her support for the bill but expressed concern about the amendment that relates to police being the applicant in any application for a variation or revocation of an AVO that concerns a child. She asked why women do not have the power to apply for the variation or revocation.
This amendment arose out of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. The commission found that there were inconsistencies between the two sections of the Act. Section 562F (2) currently provides that an application to vary an AVO where the protected person is a child under the age of 16 years must be made by a police officer. However, section 562F (4B) provides that anyone could make the application for the variation or revocation of an AVO that covers more than one protected person, including children under the age of 16 years, regardless of whether or not the variation is sought by police. This recommendation is designed to remove the inconsistency between sections 562F (2) and 562 (4B) by providing that only police can apply for a variation if it affects a child under the age of 16 years.
It is undeniable that there is a philosophical dilemma as to whether this provision would disempower victims and remove their autonomy to make decisions about the welfare of their children. After AVLICC considered this issue at length it ultimately determined that the interests and safety of the child were paramount, and supported the recommendation. It must be remembered that for some victims it will in fact relieve the burden of having to make a decision about their children when faced with pressure from a defendant. The bill will ensure that domestic and personal violence are given the utmost priority in the legal system and ensure that the community, more specifically women and children, will be adequately protected and feel assured that all is being done to prevent violence from being perpetrated against them.
At the same time, the Government's bill provides balance so that the rights of the defendant are considered along with the need for protection of the community. The public have a right to feel confident that the legal system contains measures that will afford protection from domestic and personal violence and will not allow would-be perpetrators of violence to feel that they are inviolable. Rather, a clear message is being sent that this Government takes the issue of domestic and personal violence very seriously and is prepared to introduce provisions to deal with those who breach the law. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) AMENDMENT (PARENT RESPONSIBILITY CONTRACTS) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 6 September 2006.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [9.44 p.m.]: I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill 2006. At the outset I must express disappointment that the Minister is not at the table to take part in the debate. It is not often that she introduces legislation relating to crucial child protection matters and I trust that something very important has necessitated her absence from the Chamber this evening. The bill seeks to amend the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to create a legislative base for parent responsibility contracts. The aim of the contracts, as described by the Minister in her second reading speech, is to encourage parents to improve their parenting skills and accept greater responsibility for their children.
The bill seeks to offer the Department of Community Services [DOCS] a form of action as an alternative to bringing the matter before the Children's Court. However, appropriately, the bill does not exclude Children's Court action or removal of the child if it is deemed that the child is at immediate risk. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the major provisions in the bill. The bill will enable DOCS to develop, with the primary caregiver, a parent responsibility contract. This is supposed to occur when DOCS is of the view that the lack of parenting can be modified in six months to reduce the risk of harm to the child. Once agreed, the contract 2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
will be registered in the Children's Court. The bill proposes that the contract may require a primary care giver to attend and participate in programs such as parenting skills and may include a commitment to undertake drug testing, or other measures.
The bill will authorise the director general to file a contract breach notice in the Children's Court, which initiates an application for care orders. When a fundamental term of the contract has been breached the filing of a contract breach notice simply operates as a form of bringing a care application. As I understand it, it is not intended that the director general will file any further affidavits or evidence. The bill broadens the care orders available to the Children's Court, and it appropriately extends the definition from "parent" to "primary care giver". The bill proposes that the Children's Court be given the power under section 75 of the Act to order a primary care giver to attend therapeutic or treatment orders. It also amends section 38 of the Act to clarify the circumstances in which the Children's Court may make consent orders for the purposes of giving effect to a care plan without the need for a care application.
The New South Wales Coalition has a strong and proud record regarding this most critical of issues facing the community, that of child protection. The Coalition does not oppose the intent of the bill and will not oppose it, but we believe that to date the Minister has failed to deal with a number of critical issues regarding the bill, some of which I will outline. In relation to the period of a contract, the Opposition is aware of widespread community criticism that the Department of Community Services is too tardy in bringing matters before the Children's Court, and notes that the bill appropriately does not exclude Children's Court action or removal of a child if it is deemed that the child is at immediate risk. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why the contract as proposed cannot exceed a period of six months.
For many families the problems that exist may require a longer period of time to resolve. Families often need ongoing support and supervision to ensure the safety and long-term welfare of children in their care. The bill is quite strict in a number of places about this time frame, and it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why she has stipulated a period of six months. For instance, proposed section 38 (2) (e) states that a parent responsibility contract must specify the period, not exceeding six months, during which the contract will be in force, commencing on the date on which the agreement is registered with the Children's Court. Proposed section 38 (3) states:
No more than one parent responsibility contract may be entered into within any period of 12 months between the Director- General and any of the same primary care-givers for a child or young person.
Proposed section 38B gives discretion for variation of the contract, again excluding duration. The Minister must explain—and in her absence on this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary must explain—what evidence-based research supports this time period. At the end of the day the primary concern is protection of the child. Why has this arbitrary six-month period been stipulated so stringently?
I refer to a second issue that is of concern to Opposition members. Even in layperson's terms a contract is a document that binds two or more parties to certain obligations and arrangements. The proposed contracts outlined in this bill do not give any assurances that the Department of Community Services [DOCS] will fulfil its obligations. The Minister continues to fail to inform the community about how many reports, or even what proportion of child abuse reports, that are made to the Department of Community Services Helpline are followed up with a home visit from DOCS.
It was embarrassing when the Minister was unable to answer even the most basic questions about this issue during recent estimates committee hearings. She refused or was unable to answer any questions about the ability of her department to inform the community to what extent DOCS is following up reports or making home visits when reports of child abuse are made to the Helpline. Yesterday in Parliament the Minister repeated the results of a survey, which outlined that up to 43 per cent of the community who suspect an issue of child abuse are reluctant to report it. The Minister continually refuses to provide assurances to the community that once a report is made it will be followed up with a home visit.
I made this point as it has enormous relevance to this bill. The contracts outlined in the bill and in the Minister's second reading speech do not mention what role DOCS will play in supporting the forms of support services that will be required to ensure compliance with parent responsibility contracts. There is no mention in the bill of resources for appropriate parenting classes, counselling and other support services. It is incumbent on the Minister to articulate that DOCS will be appropriately resourced and have trained staff available to ensure that families that are the subject of contracts will be able to participate in relevant programs and services so as to maximise the outcome reached at the end of the six-month period. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2025
While the intent of this bill is to provide for early intervention it is again concerning that $5 million has been cut from the early intervention budget. The DOCS early intervention program is already behind in its implementation time frame. This issue was again confirmed as a result of questions posed at recent estimates committee hearings. I again make the point that we are dealing with the issue of parent responsibility contracts. The bill outlines parent responsibility contracts but we heard nothing from the Minister about what her department is doing. Is her department sufficiently resourced and staffed to ensure that the outcome is reached at the end of the six-month period, given that she stipulated in the bill that the duration of the contract would be no longer than six months?
The Opposition raises another issue relating to responsibility. The Minister failed to mention in her second reading speech the person within DOCS who will be responsible for implementation and compliance issues relating to contracts. Who will determine what will happen at the end of the six-month period? Clearly, at the end of the day the director-general is the person who is responsible, but he cannot micro-manage every contract that is entered into. The Opposition therefore believes it is incumbent on the Minister to outline the person in the department who will be responsible for management of the contracts, for compliance with contracts and for evaluation at the end of that six-month period.
The Minister stipulated that the maximum duration of a contract would be six months. She should also comment on who is making the evaluation and assessing what has happened at the end of that six-month period. What is the basis of the evaluation that will be used with respect to future action, and who will be making that evaluation? The Opposition wishes to make one final major point. Proposed section 38A (1) states:
A parent responsibility contract is an agreement between the Director-General and one or more primary care-givers for a child or young person that contains provisions aimed at improving the parenting skills of the primary care-givers and encouraging them to accept greater responsibility for the child or young person.
Clearly, that is the definition in the bill. Proposed section 38A (6) states:
However, a parent responsibility contract may not make provision for or with respect to any of the following:
(a) the allocation of parental responsibility for a child or young person.
The explanatory note to bill states:
The term parental responsibility is itself defined by section 3 to mean all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to their children.
I raised this point because I understand the legal intent of proposed section 38A (6) (a). However, I believe it causes a great deal of confusion. The allocation of parental responsibility is legal terminology. Given that that is the thrust of this bill, I believe the Minister could have taken greater care in wording that definition. I believe it needs clarification. I understand from a briefing I received that section 79 of the Act puts into greater context the legal significance of that provision. However, given the primary objective of the bill, there is no doubt that proposed section 38A (6) (a) must be better worded.
I reiterate that Opposition members will not oppose this legislation. However, we have raised a number of serious concerns that go to the heart of this Government's failure to provide adequate information to the community about its child protection record. It is simply not good enough to present one half of the story. The Minister and the Government have an obligation to provide further information to the community about what action they have taken in following up reports of child abuse. Why do they continually refuse to disclose the number of notifications or reports that are followed up with a home visit?
I ask the Minister to address the issues that I have raised. In particular I urge her to use this debate as an opportunity to provide specific information on the number of child abuse reports that are followed up with a home visit, especially as she said publicly a number of times this year that the number of reports had increased by 30 per cent. I ask her to address the Opposition's concerns relating to aspects of this bill that she failed to address in both her second reading speech and in the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [9.57 p.m.]: I support this important bill, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill, which must be commended as part of the new direction for New South Wales to balance the responsibility of government with those of people in our community. The bill is part of the Government's respect and responsibility plan, which is all about keeping people safe, tackling antisocial behaviour and building harmonious communities. In reducing antisocial 2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
behaviour and building harmonious communities there is nothing more important than parents setting an example and instilling respect and responsibility in their children.
We all know, and plenty of research shows, that there are strong links between factors associated with inadequate parenting, in particular, factors associated with child neglect and juvenile crime, poor education outcomes, and continuing cycles of abuse and/or neglect. The introduction of parent responsibility contracts will be a powerful prevention and early intervention strategy against social problems and will prevent children from coming to harm. By getting parents to take proper responsibility for their children we will be reducing antisocial behaviour and building more cohesive and harmonious communities.
It needs to be acknowledged that the parent responsibility contract bill is part of this Government's platform to tackle unacceptable behaviour. To that end we have already done a fair amount and we are determined to do more. For example, by enacting the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 we made parents more accountable for the actions of their children and encouraged the development of community based crime prevention and support strategies through the facilitation of local crime prevention plans and safer community compacts. The Government has introduced new school rules to improve standards of behaviour. Schools are required to report on respect and responsibility and their efforts to promote student involvement in the community, to tackle bullying and to use classroom activity to help children to understand that they must act with respect and responsibility.
The introduction of the parent responsibility contracts bill is another essential part of this Government's drive to foster respect. It is clear from the provisions in the bill that it is not intended that a parent responsibility contract be entered into in every situation in which a child is at risk of harm. Rather, the bill proposes that parent responsibility contracts be used in circumstances in which parents or primary caregivers voluntarily agree to address their parenting skills. This means that integrated and targeted support will be provided for parents who are willing to improve and strengthen their relationship with their children. However, in the event that the parenting intervention provided is not taken seriously and the contract is breached, the bill allows the Department of Community Services to file a contract breach notice with the Children's Court to allow orders to be made that direct parents to act responsibly or face removal of their child on protection grounds.
It is appropriate to challenge behaviour that is putting a child or young person at risk of abuse or neglect, and to support parents in their job of bringing up their children effectively. It is also appropriate that we take action to prevent child abuse or neglect by implementing strategies, supported by court orders where necessary, to direct parents to take appropriate care of and to protect their children. This bill is an innovative step that will help ensure parents respect their responsibility to provide appropriate care and protection for their children. By doing so they will instil in their children a sense of safety and security and respect for themselves.
For a substantial part of my professional life as a legal aid lawyer I worked in the Children's Court. Given that experience, I welcome this legislative change. It gives the court a wider range of strategies to use to assist families and it protects children, and in doing so it provides a great balance. I fully support this legislation and I commend the Minister for introducing it. This is a significant strategy that will go a long way to foster respect in our community.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [10.05 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill. The bill amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, provides for parent responsibility contracts and makes consequential amendments to the Children's Court Rule 2000. The objects of the bill are:
(a) to amend the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998:
(i) to enable the Director-General of the Department of Community Services (the Director-General) and the primary care-givers for a child or young person to enter into an agreement (a parent responsibility contract) that contains provisions aimed at improving the parenting skills of the primary care-givers and encouraging them to accept greater responsibility for the child or young person, and
(ii) to clarify the circumstances in which the Children's Court may make orders for the purpose of giving effect to a care plan without the need for a care application under Part 2 of Chapter 5 of that Act, and
(iii) to enable the Children's Court to accept undertakings from certain persons in respect of a child or young person in need of care and protection even if they are not parents of the child or young person, and
(iv) to expand the power of the Children's Court to make orders with respect to attendance by the parents of a child or young person at a therapeutic or treatment program 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2027
I cannot stress enough the importance of legislation that improves safety for our children and support for families. As a member of the Committee on Children and Young People for the past 4½ years I have seen many instances where family circumstances could be improved. It has been a great opportunity to debate a range of issues—perhaps not as many as honourable members on this side of the chamber might have preferred. Children are a precious and vulnerable resource and they are obviously our future. It is most important that we tackle antisocial behaviour in children and that we ensure families provide a healthy environment. We must promote those core values in our society and provide opportunities for responsibility to be assumed.
The honourable member for Auburn said that these contracts are voluntary. I hope that families who choose not to enter into a contract are not judged harshly. I undertook the Child and Adolescent Certificate Course with the College of Nursing some years ago. During the course I researched all aspects of child and adolescent care in the Hornsby Shire Council area. While undertaking that research I met the members of a wonderful family with whom I still have contact today. The family had four children, one of whom decided to follow a different path by leaving home and taking up an extremely risky lifestyle. This was an average, caring family, but the girl decided that normal family life was not for her. She started down this path by stealing from her family, after which she left home. Her parents had many agonising years of watching her journey. It was heartbreaking to see them trying to cope while their other children were leading a normal family life. My point is that a family should not be judged based on the activities of one child. Often poor parenting is not the reason for a child going off the rails. That girl is now a young woman, she has settled down and is married with children. She survived a very risky lifestyle, which proves that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I agree with the honourable member for Willoughby that six months may not be long enough to deal with a family's problems. The bill does not appear to state what is expected of the Department of Community Services. It might need extra funding or other resources to enable a contract to be managed. The bill does not explain who in DOCS would be responsible for overseeing a contract and ensuring that its conditions are met. I also cast serious doubt on the $5 million cut in the early intervention program. Implementation of that program is already behind schedule so it is not a good time to start entering into contracts.
I suspect we all see children in disturbing situations every day. When I drive through suburbs late at night I am dismayed to see young teenagers, who are perhaps up to no good, sitting on the kerbside. I wonder whether their parents know where their children are and, if they do, how they can approve of such behaviour. Legislators should not intrude on people's lives but it is incumbent upon us to support families and to offer alternatives to bringing matters before the courts. Too many of our children are at risk, and reports of child abuse have increased by 30 per cent. According to recent research one in three people had suspected that a child had been abused but 43 per cent of them failed to report it. That is an extremely worrying statistic. If we believe a child is at risk we should report our suspicions to the appropriate authorities. In her second reading speech the Minister said:
The bill proposes that a parent responsibility contract may require a primary caregiver to attend and participate in programs to address such issues as mental health, parenting skills, addiction, anger management and violence prevention and behavioural issues.
Primary caregivers may also have to make a commitment to undergo alcohol or drug testing. They may have to agree to take children to child care centres or to ensure that they receive treatment such as speech therapy. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. We obviously wish to keep children safe and to tackle antisocial behaviour by promoting the family unit. We want to create safe, harmonious communities where our children can grow and flourish. The Government must reinforce parents' efforts to teach their children respect and responsibility. But parents must lead by example: they should set a good example and be good role models for their children.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.13 p.m.]: I support the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill and commend the Minister for Community Services for bringing it to the House. This is very good legislation. Parenting is complex. Most parents want the best for their children and want them to have better experiences in life than they had. But the simple reality is that not all parents and families are equipped to achieve that fine goal, and this bill aims to assist them.
Parenting is complex and we live in an increasingly complicated world. Families must deal with issues such as mental health, violence, and alcohol and substance abuse. This bill is about working with those families and introducing a regime that helps them to realise that they should be sending more positive messages to their children. This bill aims to break the inter-generational cycle of family dysfunction. That may sound harsh, but 2028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
the reality is that we do not live in a perfect world and some families cannot provide sound parenting. Every government has the important social justice responsibility of breaking that cycle of dysfunction.
Children who are socialised early in life will reap the benefits for the rest of their lives. The 2006-07 budget allocates $203 million to children's services and to early intervention programs. Alongside this initiative is the New South Wales Government's early intervention program that works to provide support through home visits, parenting programs and quality child care for eligible families. Through such measures we are attempting to break the cycle of child abuse, which is often an emotive and difficult issue to address in the public arena. The Minister referred this week to research undertaken recently in New South Wales into public perceptions of child abuse and the way in which that problem is addressed by public figures such as parliamentarians. That research underpins the bill.
The bill will formalise the voluntary agreements of the past by requiring parents to enter into contracts, which we believe will be powerful tools. Parents will be asked to sign a contract agreeing to do something about those behaviours that are having a negative impact on their parenting responsibilities, and therefore their children and their children's children. The Government recognises that informal undertakings are often not adhered to so we have taken this step. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this bill and legislating for this new scheme in New South Wales.
The contracts are voluntary agreements between the primary caregiver of a child or young person and the director general of DOCS. But they are contracts. While parents adhere to the terms of the contract they will receive support. They will be linked to appropriate support services that address their personal issues and needs, such as anger management, health, mental health and violence prevention. The aim of the contract and the support will be to encourage parents to accept more responsibility for their children and to model better behaviours. Other speakers in this debate have explored the points that I intended to raise. I congratulate the Minister on this initiative and commend the bill to the House.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [10.19 p.m.]: It is interesting to note that the members who have spoken to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill from both sides of the House are females who have backgrounds in caring for children and, therefore, have a close affinity with what is occurring at the grassroots level. I welcome this long overdue amendment that will place responsibility on parents. For too long there has been the belief among irresponsible parents that someone else is always to blame for the welfare of their children. Recently I was told by a community member, "Dawn, we have to blame someone; it is never our fault."
The work carried out by government and non-government agencies is endless and thankless. On a daily basis they have to witness children who are undernourished being totally neglected, sexually and physically abused, roaming the streets unsupervised, and joining gangs for some sense of belonging. If they survive all that, they end up carrying out criminal activities for the rest of their lives. The parents of those children have a total disregard for the law, their children and themselves. When young and very young offenders are caught stealing cars, the police contact their parents or guardians. My local police have told me that they are usually told, "We are sick of them, we don't want them, and we will be down in a couple of hours." Police have waited four, five or six hours, or even longer, until it suits these so-called parents to go the police station to be with their children. They certainly qualify for parental responsibility contracts.
Any parent or guardian who disregards laws qualifies for a parental responsibility contract. For example, I often speak about the family from hell. I will not name the family, but the single mother has had seven children to different partners. She has a drug problem. Three of the seven children are known to police for many offences in our area and have all been inmates of the juvenile justice system. The mother's partners have physically abused her. The children have an extremely low attendance at school, although they are quite bright. I know them well. However, they receive no encouragement to further their education and they are not fed. Baby bonuses and family allowances are never spent wisely. I will refer to that aspect later.
The children constantly antagonise law-abiding neighbours, and their mother encourages them to destroy neighbours' property. The family has been removed from Department of Housing premises and is now renting a privately owned dwelling. The family is well known to all agencies, police and me. However, the family continues to flout and disobey all laws of decency, and the children are being denied a future. The mother should be the first parent to be placed on a parental responsibility contract. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2029
To date, with extremely limited staff in the Department of Community Services [DOCS], children who have been identified as being in need have had the opportunity from many directions to attend programs operated by youth centres, sport and activities, breakfast clubs organised by police and community youth clubs, the Red Cross and schools, as well as truancy programs. All this is worthy and needs to continue. However, the children return daily to a squalid environment and still do not attend school. Instead they run wild, steal cars, light fires, with no direction from home. Parents are aware of the unlawful activities of their children, but some condone those activities by giving the reason, "They are bored with nothing else to do." That is total rubbish. Communities are bending over backwards to assist these children, as is DOCS, with activities mainly operated by volunteers.
Many networks in the electorate of Dubbo confide in me regarding the many issues confronting them. When determining whether a child qualifies for a program, the homes the provider visits are often in a putrid state, not fit for an animal, and children are living in these conditions. I have been told that some foster care environments are no better than the environment the children have been removed from. That does not apply to all cases. At the moment the number of children being referred to services exceeds the number of case mangers and carers available.
Last week two foster carers, one from my electorate and another outside my electorate, came to see me to express their concerns. They were not at all critical of the Department of Community Services. They felt that DOCS staff were all carrying out their duties well, but that the policy DOCS has to follow is letting the system down. The foster carers spoke of paedophilia, from older youth to young children, and said it was a concern and very real. The older youths had themselves been victims when they were very young, and the parents of all those concerned were aware of the behaviour but condoned it and did nothing to prevent it.
Both carers had children in their foster care who came from sickening situations, which I will not disclose in this House as I wish to protect the carers and the children. However, they are disillusioned that four children can be removed from a mother, yet the same woman now has another young baby and DOCS is unable to remove that child unless a situation is reported. The details of the treatment of these young children as told to me are simply horrific. The foster carers also believe that the rights of the parents involved in the situations related to me should be severely reduced. Some of the children in their care scream because they are terrified of revisiting their birth parents and, in many cases, the environment in which they were violated and totally neglected. We need a new mindset. The law should be about the welfare of the child, not the rights of the child.
I turn now to the Federal Government's disastrous baby bonus, which this year was $4,000 following the birth of a child. The Federal Government is under the illusion that the baby bonus will encourage more women to produce children, which in turn will sustain our population. Mr Howard and Mr Costello certainly are increasing our population. However, many of these newborn children will not enjoy a long life span. Mr Howard and Mr Costello certainly have secured the votes of low social economic groups, who will continue to vote for anyone who pays them sit-down money, as an elder described it to me. The elder also told me it is not the solution to the problem. It may buy politicians votes, but at what horrific price to the community and the future life of many children and foster carers who are expected to provide a decent life for these damaged souls?
I refer to a recent article written by Sue Dunlevy on page 20 of the Daily Telegraph of Friday 15 September 2006. I do not usually believe all I read or hear in the media, but the article is a true and correct version of what is occurring in our community. Politicians of all beliefs read all newsprint back to front. However, I do not recall any member of the Federal Government picking up this poison chalice and turning the situation around. Young girls are becoming pregnant to male predators, and following birth of the child are physically assaulted until they hand over the money. In some cases, they are being abused by members of their own family for the allowance. They are falling pregnant deliberately to obtain the baby bonus, to feed their drug habit and continue their substance abuse through their pregnancy. The end result is that many, many newborns are born addicted to drugs.
I have seen preschoolers and older children who have been born with an addiction. Many are autistic or have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and for the foster carers who are left to care for these damaged souls it is an extremely demanding commitment. DOCS is doing all it can to assist these children and put them on the right path, but the beginning of their life is very dismal. In the hospitals, the young mothers have been known to look through the brochures deciding on which plasma television they will purchase with the baby bonus. I have also been told by carers of young girls that after the birth of their baby they have filled in the form for the baby bonus, collected the funds, and then advised the hospital they will not be returning to collect their baby. I am aware of two further horrific incidents, which I will not disclose in this House as it would be 2030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
irresponsible of me to do so and we could see a copycat reaction from those who would follow suit for the sake of $4,000, which I have been told will be increased to $5,000 next year.
I have been working on the baby bonus issue for at least 12 months. I do not have any confidence in the Federal member for Parkes, John Cobb, as I feel he is insensitive to community issues. Ironically, he is now the Federal Minister for Community Services, which is not appropriate. I phoned a Federal member of Parliament to seek assistance in this regard. However, that member received only a standard response from the appropriate Minister, Tony Abbott. I also recall phoning Pru Goward's office and speaking to her about this issue. During a visit to Dubbo she had expressed her disagreement with a lump sum baby bonus being paid.
At that time Pru Goward's recommendation to the Prime Minister was for the baby bonus to be distributed over 14 weeks. I recall advising Pru Goward of a horrific situation that had been brought to my attention, and seeking her assistance to change the method of payment of the baby bonus. I am still waiting for her return phone call. I only hope that if Pru Goward is elected to the New South Wales Parliament in March 2007 to represent the electorate of Goulburn, she remembers to return phone calls to her constituents.
Payment of the baby bonus allowance must be distributed over a minimum of 20 weeks. What were Mr Howard and Mr Costello thinking of when they approved the lump sum baby bonus? I agree with the baby bonus, but it should be paid over a certain period because not everyone can manage their finances. While many new mothers spend the bonus wisely, the teenage pregnancy rate has absolutely soared—not unplanned pregnancies, but planned pregnancies for the sake of cash. Children are having children for the sake of a payment. In many cases the bonus is handed over to the so-called man in their life for his personal use, after the mother has been subjected to domestic violence.
Recently there was a toy sale in our electorate and many welfare families were in the area. The central business district was full of families, including children with no proper winter clothing and no shoes on their feet. Obviously the children were not attending school. On that Friday afternoon I ran into the family from hell. I also recognised other families who should be under a lifetime parental contract. And what were they purchasing? Toys, McDonalds, cigarettes and new pushbikes, which would have been destroyed by nightfall or stolen to feed someone's habit. When the Minister for Community Services introduced the bill on 30 August she was quite correct when she stated:
The truth is that some parents are indifferent to the welfare of their children while others are downright cruel.
Too many children are exposed to drug and alcohol abuse, poor parenting or neglect. This amendment is necessary. However, it must be implemented by the judicial system in the way the community expects. It is worthwhile noting the parental responsibility laws in United Kingdom. Following the introduction of parenting orders and contracts nearly 3,000, or 71 per cent, of parents identified had started a parenting program. The remaining 29 per cent who did not take up the program gave reasons such as mental health problems, service access problems, transport, child minding or time. I can imagine people in my area using the same excuses. I do not want anyone in Dubbo to use those excuses to avoid being on a contract, as they are not excuses at all. There are plenty of services available every day to deal with those issues.
Let us be honest: when we talk about irresponsible parents, we are not only talking about parents from housing estates or single parents. This epidemic does not discriminate. The latch key kids are helping themselves to dad's mini bar, not attending school, experimenting with drugs and engaging in illegal activity to relieve their boredom or supply their habit. Their parents also need to be looked at, and I am not referring only to those who come to the notice of the Department of Community Services. This statement may seem harsh, but this bill will be useless if the measure is voluntary and not mandatory. I can see many people taking the easy way out and the contract will not be effective.
The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 allows the Department of Community Services to intervene if the department has received a report that a child is at risk of harm and the department considers that the child is in need of care and protection. Intervention includes providing support services to the family. My electorate has an abundance of support services and their clients know how to play the system. I am not criticising the work of these government and non- government agencies, but it is ineffective if parents or guardians are not subject to compulsory parental orders to attend programs and to comply with the orders of the court and the wishes of the community. 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2031
In the United Kingdom a court may make a parenting order if a child is convicted of an offence or if a child is subject to an antisocial behaviour order. Failure to comply with a parenting order can result in a fine. The word "can" or "may" should not appear in our legislation; it should be "will" or "should". Many parents ignore every law in the book. The only way to turn that around is to make a compulsory parenting order in every instance in relation to those identified by police, the Department of Community Services and other agencies and hit them in the hip pocket. I am a compassionate person, particularly to those who are doing it tough economically. That includes farmers. However, many suffer the inconvenience of service provision problems, for example, waiting lists to join parenting groups.
Can a parent refuse to enter into a parental contract? Legislation is needed to make it impossible to decline; they should be made an offer they cannot refuse. I realise there will be many issues for the court to take into consideration before the issuing of a contract. Repeat young offenders, many under 10 years of age, deserve better parenting and an educated start to life. I support the bill. However, I will be the first to challenge it if it is not used appropriately and children are still neglected and turning to crime.
Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [10.32 p.m.]: I take pleasure in supporting the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Community Services, who is in the chair, on introducing this legislation. In particular, I support the proposals for the operation of the contracts scheme outlined in the bill. New South Wales has a very worthy system of mandatory reporting when there is a concern that a child's wellbeing or safety may be threatened. This system is all about making sure that all relevant information is received by agencies who can combine it to form a picture of the needs of the child. In doing that, the Department of Community Services is called on to assess the situation of many young people in this State, a significant number of whom are found to be in need of care and protection, as has been eloquently outlined by the honourable member for Dubbo.
I am impressed with the initiative in this bill, which proposes that rather than taking the child's situation straight to the Children's Court, a contract can be entered into which aims to support parents and caregivers to get themselves back on track and to provide more effective parenting to their children. The contract formalises undertakings between the young person's primary caregivers and the department. This contract, to be known as a parent responsibility contract, could prove beneficial when the child is in need of care and protection because the child's caregiver lacks parenting skills or displays antisocial behaviour. If those issues can be modified or resolved to the advantage of the child by their caregivers assuming responsibility for their actions, that is surely a positive outcome for all concerned. I understand that the Department of Community Services will assess whether a modification of such problematic parental behaviour can be achieved within six months and thus reduce the risk of harm posed to the child or young person.
The parent responsibility contract will be a written agreement between the primary caregivers of the child or young person concerned and the Department of Community Services. While it is a voluntary arrangement for a period of no longer than six months, it will provide incentive and support for those parents who are motivated to overcome their problems and keep their family intact. It is a formal contract and so the bill provides that prior to signing, primary caregivers may, if they choose, obtain independent legal advice. The contract will contain clear and achievable goals for primary caregivers. It will also specify the agencies and assistance to be given to help the primary caregiver fulfil the agreement and resolve or modify the behaviours impacting on the welfare of their child.
The contract will only include reference to those agencies which have indicated that they can work with and assist the primary caregiver and the family. The agreement of all parties will be sought in relation to information sharing so that an interagency approach to working with the family can be facilitated. Examples of the programs which may be provided under the parent responsibility contract include those for the treatment of alcohol, drug or other substance abuse, counselling, participation in alcohol or drug testing, and courses aimed at improving parenting skills. These may include a range of courses such as behaviour management, anger management or financial management. The contract may also require the primary caregiver to commit to certain activities on behalf of the child, such as taking the child to child care or speech pathology or even something as simple as being aware of where their child is and ensuring that the child receives the right amount of sleep or is eating the right types of food.
The aim of all of those provisions is to guarantee the safety and wellbeing of the child, help the family stay together and so minimise the need of the child or young person for care and protection. The parent responsibility contract will be agreed to and signed by all parties, and then registered in the Children's Court. It will clearly state the consequences of a breach of the contract. The contract is designed to set up an accountable 2032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 September 2006
regime of improved parental conduct. It is specifically not designed to have hidden financial costs that may only add to the burdens of the parents. The usual consequences of any commercial contract, claims for damages, misleading conduct, enforceability of unfair provisions and all those other things that are rightly the province of people who strike a commercial bargain, have no place here. This is about getting improved parental behaviour, not about technical enforcements and pursuits of rights, other than those of the child.
If a parent or caregiver breaches the terms of the contract, then the director general of the Department of Community Services will issue a contract breach notice with the Children's Court. I understand that this breach notice commences an application in the Children's Court for care orders for the child or young person concerned. In other words, if the contract is breached and the notice filed, then there is a presumption that the child or young person is in need of care and protection. If the parent or primary caregiver does not present the court with sufficient evidence about how the child is being cared for, the bill proposes that the Children's Court can proceed to make care orders. It is to be hoped that very few contracts have that outcome, and that the majority have positive and successful outcomes for the benefit of children and their families.
The amendments proposed in this bill strengthen the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act and its main purpose, which is to provide for the care and protection of children and young persons, and the provision of services to them. I am pleased to give my support to the parent responsibility contracts scheme, which will form an important part of the Government's respect and responsibility initiatives. Once this legislation is enacted it will have a positive impact on my electorate of Peats, which I am proud to represent in this House. Peats has some spectacular beach areas within its boundaries but, unfortunately, those locations become hot-spots for underage drinking and antisocial behaviour, particularly during the summertime.
I am hopeful that the provisions in the bill will encourage those parents who may not be aware of their children's whereabouts to make it their business to find out just where their children are and what they are doing, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings. Having said that, I hasten to add that the vast majority of parents are good, responsible and caring parents but, unfortunately, there are some who do fall down on their parental responsibilities. The bill will go a long way towards addressing that gap in our society. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth) [10.39 p.m.], in reply: In commending the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill to the House I thank honourable members for their contributions and address a number of points that have been raised. The honourable member for Hornsby raised the important issue of the six-month limitation on the operation of a parental responsibility contract. A parental responsibility contract is purposely time-limited to a six-month period so as to be able to quickly and effectively deal with problem families where unacceptable parental behaviour is creating a risk of harm to their children.
The aim is to provide intensive targeted intervention in a timely manner in order to remove the risk to the child or young person. A parental responsibility contract sets out the goals for the primary caregivers to achieve within a maximum six-month time frame. All contracts will be deliberately concrete in that the requirements will be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. If the goals are not met and there is no demonstrated change in the parent's behaviour within six months, care proceedings are the preferable vehicle to resolve what needs to be done. If parental responsibility contracts are not time-limited or can simply be reissued there is no imperative to achieve outcomes for the child.
The honourable member for Hornsby expressed concern that the service regime that underpins the operation of the parental responsibility contract be funded. I reassure her that the Department of Community Services has consulted with the departments of health, corrective services, housing, juvenile justice, the Attorney General's Department as well as NSW Police on the issue of service delivery. From this consultation process it was recognised that the contract scheme would not attract a new group of clients. Rather, it is anticipated that the group of parents that might have previously agreed to give informal undertakings to the Department of Community Services is the same group who would come under this new scheme. These are families with whom the Department of Community Services is already working and in some cases with whom other agencies are already working. Therefore, the implementation of this scheme can be met from within existing resources and should not impact on current service delivery of agencies. The proposal should not add to the number of people to whom legal aid or other agencies are responding.
I thank the honourable member for Dubbo for her contribution and support for the bill. I acknowledge what I regard as quite insightful comments about the abuse of the lump sum baby bonus and I echo her concerns 20 September 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2033
that this program warrants a review by the Federal Government. In relation to the inquiries of the honourable member for Willoughby regarding the number of notifications that the Department of Community Services receives and the nature of the casework response that those notifications in turn receive, I refer her to the comprehensive answers that were placed on the public record by me and by the Director General of the Department of Community Services during the estimates hearing on 4 September. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
The House adjourned at 10.43 p.m. until Thursday 21 September 2006 at 10.00 a.m.