4608
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 22 November 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 country.
AUDIT OFFICE
Report
Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 38E of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the Performance Audit Report entitled "Major Infectious Disease Outbreaks—Readiness to Respond: NSW Health", dated November 2006.
Ordered to be printed.
ADOPTION AMENDMENT BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.
Consideration of amendments deferred.
VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [10.01 a.m.] (Valedictory Speech): From the time I first sat in this Chamber as an 11-year-old schoolboy as a guest of my then local member, John Maddison, I wanted to be a member of the New South Wales Parliament. It took me another 24 years to make my maiden speech in support of the Greiner Government's Summary Offences Bill to wind back Frank Walker's laissez faire approach to the criminal law. It is the only speech I have read in this Chamber until now, and I seek your indulgence to read this one.
While I was proud to be a member of Nick Greiner's fast-moving reformist Government, my personal political progress was depressingly slow and much of my time was taken up on parliamentary committees. Looking back on things now, those were some of my most productive and enjoyable years. As a result of my membership of the Privacy Committee, I was able to introduce what I believe was the first bill in Australia on data protection, although in recent years ramped up privacy laws have been used to trump freedom of information laws—something I never intended. My first chairmanship was of the Ombudsman's Committee. The then Ombudsman David Landa was deeply suspicious when I announced a public inquiry into his handling of complaints against police. But the committee was able to hold an unprecedented joint meeting with Mr Landa and the then police Commissioner Tony Lauer, at which the Ombudsman agreed to the police handling minor complaints as management issues while the commissioner agreed to a widening of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to directly investigate serious complaints. Ted Pickering then legislated to give effect to this agreement in a system that survived the Wood royal commission and continues largely intact.
In 1992 I became Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. With the assistance of a wonderfully talented staff, the committee produced a record number of reports into things as diverse as school student transport, public defenders and infrastructure. The Cabinet with the political courage to tackle the anomalies of school transport has probably not yet been born, though the public defender's report led to statutory recognition of that office. However, it was the infrastructure reports that really broke new ground and the phrase "public private partnerships" soon gained wide circulation. The Government formally adopted many of the committee's recommendations as it proceeded with private sector participation in the huge construction program for the 2000 Olympics. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4609
Since then, however, the reputation of public private partnerships has suffered, especially with the debacle over the Cross City Tunnel. But this project failed the committee's most basic test: the appropriate balance between public and private risk—an issue as old as New South Wales itself. In 1786-87 the Home Secretary Lord Sydney spent £54,000 to ensure that his able contractor William Richards could adequately provision the First Fleet, as a result of which there were only about 23 deaths on the voyage out. But his successor, the young up and comer William Grenville, keen to make a name for himself in Cabinet as a cost cutter, sacked Richards and replaced him with the London slaving firm of Camden, Calvert and King, saving over £20,000 in the process. As a result, 267 people died during the Second Fleet's voyage and the conditions were so bad that one of the captains was prosecuted for murder.
The message then and now is simple: get the public-private balance of risk right. With road projects, such as the proposed tunnel through my electorate linking the F3 and M2, traffic counts are the key to measuring this risk, which is why I have advocated a short, sharp public inquiry into the traffic counts that were used to justify this tunnel option. So much of committee time these days is taken up in search of a headline by the highly aggressive cross-examination of witnesses. While tough questioning is part of public accountability, not much from these confrontations seem to stand the test of time. I think parliamentary committees should remember that they have an opportunity to do what executive governments cannot do: bring those with conflicting points of view together to test them on oath in public to find common ground and devise good public policy out of the process.
By backing my friend Peter Collins in the leadership ballot following Nick Greiner's resignation, it took me until July 1994 to reach the dizzy heights of Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier. It was not that I did not get on with John Fahey—I admired him immensely for his work in introducing enterprise agreements as industrial relations Minister. It was just that he had other political debts to pay. Such is life in politics. When I arrived at the "Black Stump" as the Premier's office tower was then known, I was returning to a place where I had worked over three university vacations for Premiers Askin, Lewis and Willis. My job as an Assistant Service Officer in the 1970s had been to serve tea and biscuits, lay out the Cabinet table and wash up after Lady Askin's Christmas parties. After I got my Arts degree, I was put in the research section, trying to figure out how to stop Gough Whitlam claiming large chunks of coastal New South Wales under the new Law of the Sea legislation.
As Parliamentary Secretary, I soon discovered that the Premier's Department staff had consulted the departmental archives to try to figure me out. We got on okay and at the beginning of 1995, when John Fahey turned to campaigning full time, I was left to deal with all his correspondence on the advice of the Premier's Department head, Col Gellatly, and his Chief of Staff, Robert Maher. Our proud boast was that we had to get the Premier off a helicopter only once—to deal with a letter from the Federal transport Minister, Laurie Brereton, who was trying to fit us up over the third runway fiasco.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Truth in sentencing.
Mr ANDREW TINK: I will come to that. Otherwise, we handled everything, including all ministerial correspondence and the referral of a high profile statutory body to the ICAC. Following the defeat in March 1995—where, by the way, John Fahey and Ian Armstrong got almost 53 per cent of the popular vote—I finally made it on to the front bench under Peter Collins, and within a year, I was Shadow police Minister. With the implementation of the Wood royal commission reports, these were momentous times. Some of Wood's recommendations I agreed with and some I did not. Beyond any doubt, the ICAC had failed in one of the key tasks Greiner had set it, namely, rooting out police corruption. I very strongly supported Wood's recommendation to set up the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] to do what the ICAC had failed to do. The more powerful an investigative body, such as the PIC is, the greater is its responsibility to act fairly. So, when ABC Four Corners broadcast PIC telephone intercepts relating to Operation Florida before they had been introduced as evidence at PIC hearings into that operation, I lodged a complaint with the PIC Inspector.
The Hon Mervyn Finlay, QC, found that the steps the PIC took to ensure that Four Corners would not put such intercepts to air had failed, and he held the commission accountable in his report of 8 November 2001, copies of which are in the Parliamentary Library. The inspector's emphatic conclusion was that, "What happened should not have happened!" Nevertheless, I note in his book Jonestown at page 412, that Chris Masters seems to think this was somehow a plot cooked up by Alan Jones and me to attack Four Corners. Nothing could be further from the truth. Justice Finlay's report speaks for itself and I thank Alan Jones for airing this matter. While I supported the creation of the PIC, I did not agree with Wood's recommendations that resulted in the amalgamation of the then 160-odd locally led and locally based police patrols into 80 local area 4610 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
commands. In my view there was insufficient evidence of police corruption in the uniform branch to justify this reorganisation, and the abolition of police patrols such as Cronulla and Lakemba later made it difficult for police to nip in the bud the sort of conduct that led to last summer's riots. But Wood's recommendation 12 to legislate to give the commissioner clear authority over operations and the Minister over policy, so far ignored, needs to be revisited in the wake of those riots.
By far my biggest political fight was with police Minister Paul Whelan over his hotel interests. Where are you, Davina? I promised I would be good! My view was simple, especially during the reform process when so much was being asked of senior police who were prohibited from holding hotel interests: The Minister who, at the end of the day could direct such police, should set the example and divest himself of his interests. The battle raged on and off for years until in May 1998, after I revealed in Parliament that the Minister was the company secretary and director of Reachbold Pty Limited, which owned the Orient Hotel in The Rocks, he resigned from these positions.
This fight was not personal on my part, but was all about the perception of a conflict of interest, as was an issue involving Premier Carr's proposal to allow Gordon Samuels to continue as Chairman of the Law Reform Commission following his appointment as Governor. I could not understand how one of the Government's key advisers on changing the law could, at the same time, sign such laws into effect, and raised the matter with ICAC Commissioner Barry O'Keefe. However, at his later swearing in, the Governor announced he would not be available to be chairman, which I thought was the right and proper result.
Apart from tackling such issues, I tried to run a broad-based program of private members' bills to push the Government on reform. With parliamentary numbers tight after 1995, I almost got up a contract provisions disclosure bill, but was defeated on the casting vote of the Speaker. My first majority verdicts bill was comprehensively defeated in 1997 after a very strong speech against the whole concept of majority verdicts by the current Premier, who has only recently come to see the error of his ways. Nevertheless, Paul Whelan allowed me one significant victory when the Government agreed to support a Bail Amendment Bill allowing the confiscation of passports after a man, allegedly involved in driving a defective truck that hit a car and burned a baby to death, absconded overseas after a magistrate said he had no power to confiscate his passport.
More recently as shadow Attorney General, I proposed greater accountability for prosecutors and judges, and wanted to see juries involved in sentencing. The New South Wales Department of Public Prosecutions [DPP] should be subject to the same parliamentary committee oversight as the English DPP, and Mr Cowdrey should realise that independence must be balanced by accountability of the sort the ICAC, PlC and others have long accepted. As for the judiciary, the debacle of the sleeping Judge Dodd, whose problem was brought to a head by the RTA rather than the Judicial Commission, clearly indicates to me that it is high time a layperson was appointed to the division dealing with serious judicial misconduct. After all, the Judicial Commission's powers are delegated from Parliament itself, which alone has the power to sack judges, and lay participation in proceedings to discipline barristers and solicitors has long been accepted.
I refer now to W. C. Wentworth to my left up here, who first sat in this Chamber as an elected member in 1843 and whose portrait has hung here since 1859. When Wentworth was born in 1790, return communications from Sydney to London and back took a year, as a consequence of which the Governor was all-powerful. But in 1872, the year of Wentworth's death, the completion of a telegraph line reduced communication time to about four hours—and this changed politics. In the 1850s, the Crimean War came and went, reported as a far away Imperial distraction. But thanks to the telegraph, General Gordon's decapitation in Khartoum was so quickly reported in Sydney in 1885 that New South Wales immediately sent troops there. And so today, changes to communication also drive politicians.
When I first came into Parliament, mobile phones were virtually unheard of and there was no Internet or email. Even in the mid-1990s, only a few public servants and Ministers could access up-to-date New South Wales statutes. Today Internet search engines allow anyone to look up sentencing Acts and get on to talkback radio to debate them. The ability of an ordinary talkback caller to be heard by 600,000 listeners, on sentencing, is, by definition in a liberal democracy, good; but it places enormous stresses on the legal system. The key to easing these stresses now, as it was almost 200 years ago, is to allow the public to participate.
In Wentworth's day, a burning political issue was whether to allow ex-convicts to sit on juries to judge wealthy exclusives. Wentworth championed the ex-convicts and the law was eventually changed without awful consequences. Today even the Chief Justice agrees that the community, through juries, should have a say in sentencing. And again there is a relatively simple way: If a jury returned a guilty verdict for a crime carrying a 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4611
standard non-parole period set by Parliament, the jury would be asked whether, on the evidence it has heard, the standard non-parole period should apply. If the answer were "yes", the judge would use the non-parole period as the minimum starting point for sentencing and if "no" then there would be no such restriction. [Extension of time agreed to.]
My first experience of a Liberal leadership challenge was in January 1976 during one of my summer breaks working in the Premier's Department. Eric Willis defeated Tom Lewis, but no good came of it and the Coalition Government was defeated four months later. Since then I have seen Chikarovski defeat Collins, and Brogden defeat Chikarovski. Each time I backed the incumbent, believing that those involved would have been much better off working on policy. At each subsequent election we went backwards, and the careers of two people who had the ability to be Premier ended prematurely.
The lesson, as far as I am concerned, is that leadership coups are no substitute for good policy work. After John Brogden resigned, some suggested that I put my hand up for the leadership. But whatever my ambitions might have been in the past, it was out of the question following a nasty attack of shingles above my right eye, which, at that time, affected my general health quite severely. I was happy to continue as shadow Attorney and Leader of the House, but as the time approached for me to nominate for pre-selection it became clear to me that I should stand down, not being certain at that time that I could commit to another four years in Parliament.
Since making that decision my health has improved greatly, which, as far as I am concerned, is a sign that I made the right personal decision at the time even though it will not be easy to be a mere spectator of what I am quietly confident will be a Coalition Government next year. It has been a great privilege to represent the people of Eastwood and Epping for 19 years in this House. The biggest local promise I made in my inaugural speech was to get the Castlereagh Freeway built, which was finally delivered in 1997 after years of turbulent public meetings. Overwhelmingly my constituents are resourceful and independent self-starters. They are also very well informed and capable of great passion in their politics, which locally has focused mainly on transport and planning issues arising from the pressures of an electorate comprising suburbs in the middle of the Sydney metropolitan area. My constituents are also among the most generous people in Sydney with as high a rate of volunteerism, community work and charity support as anywhere else in New South Wales. Eastwood Community Aid and the Shack Youth Outreach at Epping are just two wonderful examples of this.
I thank, firstly, members of the Eastwood and Epping State Electorate Conferences of the Liberal Party for their unswerving and strong support of me. I thank, secondly, my staff over the years, especially Margaret Zappala who first went to work for my predecessor Jim Clough in 1976; and last but by no means least, I thank my family, who, like all families of politicians, have had to put up with quite a bit over the years. When I announced I was not standing for re-election, one of the phone calls I most enjoyed receiving was from my old sparring partner Paul Whelan who gave me the following advice: "Mate, very occasionally someone might stop you in the street and say, 'Don't I know you from somewhere?' All you have to say in reply is, 'Yep, I got knocked off in one of the early rounds of Who Wants to be a Millionaire and they will then leave you alone". By the way, he told me he should have retired four years earlier. I have turned out to be a lot more conservative than John Maddison was in this House, but I still like to think that he would have approved of my career in the Parliament that, 42 years ago, he inspired me to join.
MENTAL HEALTH BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Minister for Housing, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [10.22 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to bring before the House the Mental Health Bill 2006. The bill is the culmination of an extensive consultation and review process commenced by the Government in 2003. The bill also represents an important step in the Government's commitment to take the delivery of mental health services in a new direction. In 2006-07 the Government committed a record $946 million in recurrent funds to mental health services. An additional $939 million over five years has also been committed to improve mental health services and recruit staff throughout New South Wales. The Government is also mindful of the need to ensure that we have 4612 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
appropriate legislation in place to support the reforms we are making to the mental health system. The bill will ensure that we have a modern Mental Health Act, which is up to date and responsive to consumer, carer and mental health workers' needs.
The Mental Health Act has been operational for 15 years and remains largely as passed in 1990. Over those years there have been changes in the New South Wales health system—changes in the way mental health services are organised and provided. There have also been new regulatory developments, such as privacy laws, which have directly impacted on the legislation. Given these changes, the Government took the Act to the community to consider how it can be made more effective and more responsive to the current needs of patients and the community. In my previous role as Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister for Health, now the Premier, I was proud to be part of the first comprehensive review of the Act. I note that in commencing the review the Government found great assistance in the work of the parliamentary Select Committee on Mental Health, which reported to Parliament in December 2002. The report of the committee represented a detailed picture of community concerns in relation to mental health services and provided an important context for the reform of the Act.
Seeking the involvement of the community has always been a key feature of legislative reform in this area. Each stage of the current review has been marked by extensive periods of public comment and discussion. First, in December 2003 before formally commencing the review, the Department of Health sought the views of stakeholders on the issues to be included in the review. In February 2004 the Government released the first discussion paper, "Carers and Information Sharing and the Operation of the Mental Health Act" with a call for submissions on the issues raised there. The review's second discussion paper was released in July 2004 and this major paper focused on the provisions of the Mental Health Act and again sought detailed submissions from the community.
I am happy to say that over the period following the release of the final discussion paper and throughout 2005 I was also able to obtain direct feedback on concerns and comment about the Act through a series of visits I conducted to mental health facilities around New South Wales—one of the largest community consultation processes ever undertaken across metropolitan and rural New South Wales. These meetings were attended by key stakeholders in mental health, including consumers, carers, public system staff and non-government service providers, and provided further opportunity for members of the community to have their say in the reform process.
In August this year I released the draft exposure Mental Health Bill 2006 report on the Mental Health Act, and with it the report on the review of the Mental Health Act. To ensure the bill addresses the issues identified in the review, a further round of consultation has been conducted. The feedback from the final round of consultation has been positive, with strong support for the main provisions of the bill. I am confident that the comprehensive consultation process has ensured that the Government has been able to address key concerns about the rights of consumers and carers and how best to ensure the legislative structure supports good and effective service delivery.
The positive feedback on the exposure draft bill is encouraging, with more than 50 submissions received. There have also been valuable comments on issues that need to be revised or amended. All the issues raised were carefully considered and have been incorporated where appropriate. Key areas of change include recognition and inclusion of carers in treatment decisions and plans, more flexible community treatment orders, a focus on interdepartmental co-operation and information sharing and an enhanced role for ambulance officers and health personnel in the admission and transport of patients. I am grateful so many people and organisations contributed to the development of this important legislation. The extent and quality of the submissions reflect the degree of community interest in the care and treatment of people suffering from mental illness. This legislation has benefited greatly from the valuable contributions made by carer and consumer organisations, members of the community and health professionals.
The reform agenda for the Act has been guided by the establishment of important goals that have received widespread support from the community and health professionals. First, there is the recognition and support of the greater participation of carers, families and friends. The legislation does this by providing for the sharing of information relevant to the care and treatment of the patient so that carers can be notified when patients are admitted, transferred, absent or discharged. The bill provides a balance between the consumer and carer interest by providing consumers with the right to nominate or exclude persons as a primary carer. Second, there is the increased use of specialised ambulance services to transport people to and from facilities. Third, there is the development of sufficient flexibility in the legislative scheme to accommodate future changes and 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4613
enhancements in service delivery. As I have already indicated, the Government realises that the legislative reform alone will not provide the necessary services and facilities that are required in New South Wales. So, we have announced a new direction in the delivery of mental health services, backed by a historic funding package to compliment our reforms to the Mental Health Act.
I will now take the House through some of the key reforms of this bill in more detail. Part 1 of chapter 4 of the bill establishes a new part entitled "Rights of Patients or Detained Persons and Primary Carers". This part draws together existing rights from the 1990 Act and expands them. In particular, clause 68 establishes principles for care and treatment. These principles identify principles that should be given effect to in care and treatment. These principles include assisting people with mental illnesses or disorders to live, work and participate in the community; ensuring the prescription of medicines for therapeutic purposes alone, recognising the age, religious and cultural needs of people with mental illnesses and involving patients in decisions about treatment. This part also addresses one of the main issues of the review: enabling relevant information to be shared with patients and their carers and supporting the involvement of both patients and carers in treatment decisions.
Recognition that carers and family members need greater access to patient information was one of the key issues arising from the Parliamentary Select Committee on Mental Health Services. The submissions to the review recognised the importance of carers, including family members, being given access to information that would assist them in providing care. However, many submissions were concerned to ensure that a patient is given some capacity to control who is to be considered a carer. Clauses 71 and 72 of the bill seek to balance these views by allowing a person to nominate a particular person to be their primary carer for the purposes of receiving information, allowing a person to identify persons whom they do not wish to have identified as the primary carer, and establishing a process for identifying who will be a carer when there is no nomination. The definition begins with a person's guardian and moves down the list of persons who may provide carer support to a patient.
Clauses 75 and 78 set out what type of information can be provided to the identified primary carer. Most importantly, Clause 79 provides for health service providers to take steps to involve both the patient and the carer in discharge planning discussions. In addition, the patient's statement of rights has been incorporated into the Act. As I have already indicated, the community consultation highlighted strong support for enhanced co-ordination of service provision by different agencies. The quality and relevance of these services can be improved if agencies work co-operatively, not only with the patient but also with each other. While this sort of co-operation must be developed by interagency liaison and cannot be legislated for, the bill contains a number of provisions designed to enhance co-operation between agencies. These include providing for health services to consult with other agencies when making discharge decisions. In clause 106 the administrative functions of the Director-General of the Department of Health have also been expanded to include assisting in promoting co-operation between different agencies involved in the provision of ongoing care or other services.
Another area where there was strong support for action was to amend the 1990 Act's provisions to provide a more structured approach to admission and transport and to allow ambulance officers to take people who appear to be mentally ill to a hospital for treatment. There was strong support from submissions to this proposal, which recognises that ambulance officers are likely to encounter persons who may need treatment for a mental illness. Adding them to the categories of people who can authorise involuntary admissions also brings New South Wales into line with other States. The power will not be open ended but will be limited to where the ambulance officer is treating a person and providing ambulance services, and where that officer has been authorised to make detention decisions. This last point reflects that the training and support for ambulance officers will be critical to ensure that they can safely and effectively perform this role. As such the ambulance services will ensure necessary training occurs as part of the authorisation process.
In line with proposals in discussion paper two, new express transportation provisions have been developed for the new bill. The new provisions are aimed to emphasise that New South Wales Health will take primary responsibility for patient transport, with requests for police involvement to be limited to where there are serious concerns about patient and/or staff safety. The bill also makes some changes to provisions dealing with treatment in the community. The most significant of these is to consolidate the current community counselling orders and community treatment orders into a single order that can be issued while the person is in a mental health facility or living in the community. The main concern expressed by submissions on a single order was to ensure appropriate criteria were used and to ensure that the person who is subject to the order would have a reasonable and proper opportunity to challenge it being made. To this end, the bill provides that people in the community will be given 14 days notice of an application for an order. 4614 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
The test for issuing an order will be the same whether a person is in the community or detained in a facility, although their personal circumstances will of course be relevant to the order. Legal representation will be available, as with the current process, but a failure to attend on the notified date will allow an order to be issued in the person's absence. Orders will be able to be made by the tribunal or by a magistrate. Other changes made to the community treatment provisions include extending the maximum possible period of an order from 6 to 12 months. This option has been developed for clients with an ongoing illness that has been successfully managed in the community for some time. While it is envisaged that the six-month time period will remain the standard, the new provision will give the tribunal flexibility to make longer orders for suitable clients. Included in clause 61 is an express requirement that a person who is admitted to hospital as a result of breaching the order must be reviewed within 12 hours of arrival. This brings these provisions in line with the 12-hour timeframe imposed on the review of general and voluntary admissions, and ensures that a person's admission as an involuntary patient will not automatically revoke the order. This will allow the clinician in the admitting facility to assess if a person could be discharged on the existing order.
The bill includes provisions to regulate the use of electro-convulsive therapy [ECT]. There is a marked divergence of views in the submissions in relation to the use of ECT. Consumers in the community have strong concerns about the use of this treatment. Clinicians emphasise the effectiveness of the treatment for patients, particularly those for whom no other effective treatment has been found. The new bill carefully balances these concerns by continuing the requirement that ECT be strictly controlled and monitored. The number of treatments allowed has been limited in line with guidelines issued by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. It provides very stringent requirements for ensuring that a person's informed consent is obtained. For involuntary patients, the treatment is permitted only after an inquiry by the tribunal. The treatment must be a reasonable and proper treatment, necessary or desirable for the safety or welfare of the patient.
In these circumstances the tribunal is able to approve 12 treatments. Additional treatments may be approved only in special circumstances, including where the treatment has been successful in the past. The bill also lists a number of prohibited treatments that will not be permitted in New South Wales. These are deep sleep therapy, insulin coma therapy and psychosurgery. The definition of psychosurgery has been revised. New and innovative techniques and procedures in the field of neurosurgery, such as deep brain stimulation, have emerged for treatment and relief for persons suffering from Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, tremor disorders and chronic pain. It was critical that the ban on psychosurgery did not prevent treatment and research into treatment for these debilitating conditions. The definition therefore allows the listing in the regulations of the medical conditions or illnesses for which treatment may be provided.
A limited number of changes will also be made to the provision supporting the New South Wales Official Visitors program. The changes are designed to enhance the operation of the program. For example, clause 129 (3) provides Official Visitors with specific capacity to refer matters raising significant issues of public health or safety or a significant question as to the appropriate care or treatment of a client to authorities such as the Health Care Complaints Commission. Clause 134 explicitly recognises the right of both patients and carers to contact an Official Visitor to raise issues of concern for them, their family member or friend. Under the 1990 Act at least one Official Visitor conducting each visit had to be a medical practitioner. That has been varied and clause 129 now provides for a broader range of clinically qualified visitors. The provision recognises persons who are registered as medical practitioners and psychologists and permits adding further qualifications by regulation. This reflects the fact that a range of other professional groups will be equally capable of identifying health issues that may arise during a visit.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the manner in which service provision has changed since the 1990 Act commenced operation. It is also clear that service provision has moved away from the structural system of care that was established in 1990. The current Act was based on a system where persons will only be provided involuntary care and treatment in large standalone gazetted units or through separately authorised health care agencies that administer community treatment orders. At an operational level, however, mental health services are increasingly being mainstreamed into the general health system, with services provided through a range of institutional and community settings. In addition, given that specialist mental health treatment units do not have general medical facilities, many patients now arrive via general hospital emergency departments due to presentations involving a range of medical and psychiatric issues.
The process under the 1990 Act for gazetting mental health facilities is, however, limited both in the recognition it can give to differing care models and in supporting the development of new models in the future. The draft exposure overhauls this process by making it flexible enough to recognise and support these developments in service provision while retaining a mechanism for accountability and oversight of involuntary 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4615
care and detention. The revised provision in clause 109 will allow the Director-General to authorise and gazette classes of facilities. This may include classes that are designed to provide ongoing inpatient care and treatment, and classes that provide community treatment or new classes, such as, psychiatric emergency care centres or short-term assessment centres.
The outline I have given to this point focuses on the key changes to the 1990 Act, which are included in the 2006 bill. It is important to note that the review also identified strong support for many of the existing structures and procedures. In particular, there was strong support for the retention of the current review and oversight process that operates through magistrates' inquiries and the Mental Health Review Tribunal and for the retention of the role of the Supreme Court. These processes have been retained intact. It is also important to note that the work on the mental health legislation will not end with the passage of this bill. As honourable members will be aware, the Government has asked the President of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Hon. Greg James, QC, to conduct a review of the provisions relating to forensic patients concurrent with a review of the administrative practices and procedures of the tribunal. Both of these reviews will be completed by August 2007.
The administrative review will examine current administrative practices and procedures of the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a view to enhancing the quality of decision-making and the efficient and economic operation of the tribunal. It will also look at the role of the tribunal within the broader forensics system. The provisions relating to the oversight review and release of forensic patients are contained in chapter 5 of the Mental Health Act 1990. These provisions were subject to review in Discussion Paper 2. During the consultation process a range of options and issues for reform arose in this area. The Government decided to request the president of the tribunal to further examine these options with a view to making final recommendations in this area.
The forensic review will look at a range of matters, including the appropriate authority or person to make decisions about the care, treatment and control of forensic patients, mechanisms for ensuring issues of public safety are properly considered, and the role of victims of crime and the means by which their views and concerns are addressed. Once the forensic review has reported its recommendations, the Government will further consider how best to proceed in this area. I wish to emphasise the improvements in mental health clinical care. The treatment of sufferers of mental illness in their interactions across the spectrum of all public services has been and remains a high priority for the Government. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
PRIVATE HEALTH FACILITIES BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.46 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Frank Sartor: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I have pleasure in introducing the Private Health Facilities Bill, which will promote the health and safety of the people of New South Wales by updating and enhancing the licensing and regulation of private health facilities in this State. Private health facilities in New South Wales generally provide very high standards of care and treatment. The Government is committed to ensuring that the legislation that regulates such facilities contributes to the public's continued confidence in them. This bill will replace the Private Hospitals and Day Procedure Centres Act 1988.
Private hospitals have been licensed and regulated in New South Wales since 1908 when the Private Hospitals Act was passed. That Act was followed by the Private Health Facilities Act 1982, which regulated private hospitals and nursing homes, and the Private Hospitals and Day Procedure Centres Act 1988. The number of different legislative schemes that have been implemented for the regulation of the private health sector over the past 25 years is a reflection of the pace of clinical and technological development in this sector. Although the bill replaces the current Act, it provides for a continuation of the current licensing and regulatory 4616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
system, which is both understood by the industry and operationally effective. However, the bill introduces a number of important developments and variations.
Firstly, the bill proposes to remove the current licensing distinction between private hospitals and day procedure centres. Day procedure centres were first licensed as a separate type of facility as a result of the Private Health Establishments (Day Procedure Centres) Amendment Act 1987. That licensing became fully effective on 1 January 1993 with the commencement of section 37 of the Private Hospitals and Day Procedure Centres Act 1988. Since that time there have been significant developments in medical, surgical and anaesthetic techniques, such that a much broader range of procedures and increasingly complex procedures are now routinely undertaken as day surgery. These developments are also reflected in the fact that many facilities now wish to offer what is called 23-hour care and procedures requiring extended overnight recovery. In many instances these services can safely be provided in facilities that meet standards in between those currently prescribed for private hospitals and day procedure centres. The proposed removal of the distinction between private hospitals and day procedure centres will allow the licensing standards and processes to be flexible enough to accommodate both these developments and any further developments in the industry.
Secondly, the bill proposes to remove the current cap on the number of private hospital beds. Under the current Act an application for a private hospital licence may be refused if it would result in an increase in the number of patients who can be accommodated overnight in private hospitals in New South Wales. The cap effectively means that an operator cannot open a new facility or expand an existing one unless he or she holds bed approvals in reserve or purchases those approvals from another operator. In this way a market in private hospital bed approvals has been created. These approvals have in the past changed hands for thousands of dollars each. It is of note that the bed cap does not apply to day procedure centres. At the time the bed cap was established this would have been appropriate, but subsequent technological developments and the growth in the number of complex treatments that can be provided on a day-only basis mean that its effectiveness from a planning perspective is now seriously compromised.
Therefore, the bill proposes to replace the bed cap with broader planning power whereby the Director General of NSW Health may refuse an application if it would result in more than an adequate number of health services becoming available in a particular clinical or geographic area and would undermine the provision of viable, comprehensive and co-ordinated health services. Such a decision is to be made following consideration of any development guidelines that have been approved by the director general and published in the Government Gazette. Consistent with the removal of the licensing distinction between hospitals and day procedure centres, the service planning process will also apply to day-only facilities. This is appropriate given the increased sophistication and complexity of procedures that are now undertaken on a day-only basis.
Thirdly, the bill provides for the licensee of a private health facility to apply root cause analysis methodology to investigate serious adverse events at the facility. This is in line with the current requirements in respect of public hospitals and as with root cause analysis investigations in public hospitals the root cause analysis process in private facilities will be privileged. Private health facilities are already required to report serious adverse events to NSW Health and many facilities already conduct investigations that are equivalent to a root cause analysis investigation. For those facilities the provisions of part 4 of the bill will simply formalise that situation and provide clinicians with added confidence to report adverse incidents without fear that the reporting will inappropriately be used against them in disciplinary proceedings.
Fourthly, the investigation and enforcement provisions of the bill have been enhanced. Given that this bill is designed to regulate facilities in the interests of public and patient safety a robust investigation and enforcement regime is appropriate. Stakeholders support this approach. I now turn to some of the key provisions of the bill. Clause 5 of the bill provides that licensing standards for private health facilities may be made by regulation. This reflects the approach taken under the current and former Acts. I assure members that any such regulations will be the subject of a regulatory impact statement as provided for in the Subordinate Legislation Act and be the subject of detailed consultation with stakeholders.
Clause 7 (4) (c) of the bill allows the Director General of NSW Health to develop a series of planning guidelines and apply those guidelines when considering an application for a licence. As I have already explained, this arrangement will allow for the more orderly and co-ordinated planning of health services across the entire State. In line with this more comprehensive approach to planning, clause 8 provides that an approval in principle may be renewed a maximum of four times. Whenever a person seeks to open a new facility or extend an existing facility it is usual to obtain the director general's approval in principle before commencing 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4617
work. This arrangement provides applicants with some certainty that a licence will be granted, provided they comply with the conditions attaching to the approval, before they undertake significant work and investment.
Under the current Act an approval in principle may be renewed indefinitely and this arrangement does not facilitate the orderly and co-ordinated planning of services. The intention that approvals in principle be limited to five years strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of effective planning and providing operators with a suitable period of time in which to undertake the necessary building and development. Clause 18 of the bill provides for the supply of any additional information by an applicant that the director general may reasonably require to determine an application. This provision will, amongst other things, allow the director general to obtain information that demonstrates that health and safety issues are adequately addressed. For example, an applicant who wishes to be licensed to undertake novel or experimental procedures may be required to provide evidence of the clinical validity of those procedures.
Clause 29 of the bill is a new provision that allows for the director general to suspend a licence. Suspension of a licence would only be available if the licensee is in breach of a licensing standard and there is a substantial risk to patient safety or if the facility does not have a medical advisory committee. The power to suspend a licence is an important departure from the provisions of the current Act, which provides only for the cancellation of a licence. The proposed power to suspend a licence recognises that such action may be necessary in the interests of patient safety whilst also recognising that cancellation of a private health facility licence may have a significant impact on other facilities in the area and the public health system in general. It recognises also that private health facilities are often substantial businesses employing many people whose livelihoods would be impacted by cancellation.
Clause 39 of the bill concerns medical advisory committees. The bill requires the licensee of each facility to appoint a medical advisory committee for the facility. Medical advisory committees are to be responsible for advising licensees on the credentialing of practitioners to provide services at the facility and the clinical responsibilities of those practitioners as well as advising the licensee on clinical practice and patient care matters at the facility. While the current legislation provides for the appointment of medical advisory committees that requirement is contained in the licensing standards rather than in the Act itself. The experience with medical advisory committees is that they are of fundamental importance in maintaining appropriate standards. Accordingly the requirement for the appointment of those committees is now to be included in the Act.
Part 4 of the bill consists of provisions regarding the appointment of root cause analysis teams and investigations by those teams into serious adverse incidents. These provisions are consistent with those provisions applying to public health services in the Health Administration Act. Extending these provisions to the private sector means that regardless of whether a patient is treated in the public or private health sector in New South Wales he or she can have confidence that there are systems in place to respond properly to adverse incidents and to learn from those incidents. Clause 42 of the bill provides that when a reportable incident occurs in a private health facility the licensee is to appoint a root cause analysis team to investigate the incident.
It is important to note that clause 43 provides that a team does not have the authority to conduct an investigation into the conduct of an individual practitioner. Concerns about individual practitioners should always be reported to the management of the facility and in appropriate cases to the Health Care Complaints Commission and the relevant health registration board. Notwithstanding the prohibition on a team conducting an investigation into an individual health practitioner, clause 44 provides that a team must notify the licensee and the medical advisory committee if it is of the opinion that its investigation raises issues of individual unsatisfactory professional conduct or impairment. Furthermore, a team may notify the licensee and the medical advisory committee if it is of the opinion that an investigation raises matters of unsatisfactory performance of a health professional.
Clauses 45, 46 and 47 provide a non-disclosure regime for information held by a team. These provisions are of vital importance in encouraging staff and clinicians to be involved in the root cause analysis process and to be frank and forthright in their dealings with a root cause analysis team. The non-disclosure provisions relate to information collected by the team but not to the team's report, which must be provided to the licensee and the medical advisory committee. The licensee is then required to provide a copy of the report to the Director General of NSW Health and may also provide it to any other person that the licensee considers appropriate.
Part 5 of the bill deals with enforcement matters. This part of the bill contains a number of new and expanded powers over those in the current Act. Importantly, clause 51 allows authorised officers to enter and 4618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
inspect any premises other than residential premises for the purposes of determining if there has been a contravention of the Act, the regulations or a licence condition. Under the current Act authorised officers can enter only licensed premises or premises that are the subject of an application for a licence. This has meant that officers have had no power to enter premises they reasonably believed were being operated illegally as unlicensed day procedure centres or private hospitals. The proposed new powers address this significant gap in enforcement powers.
Clause 52 of the bill allows for authorised officers to issue improvement notices to a licensee. Improvement notices will be familiar to members from other legislation including the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Marine Safety Act and the Rail Safety Act. In essence, an improvement notice is a notice to a licensee requiring them to take specified action to ensure compliance with the Act, regulations or a licence condition, within a set period. Failure to comply with an improvement notice is an offence. A licensee may appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to have the decision to issue the notice reviewed. The use of improvement notices is expected to provide an efficient and effective means to ensure compliance with licensing standards and the Act. Clause 54 of the bill provides that an authorised officer may issue a penalty notice or an on-the-spot fine for those offences that the regulations prescribe as penalty notice offences. It is intended that a penalty notice would be issued only for the more minor offences that do not go to patient safety, such as a practitioner failing to provide notice of a pecuniary interest in the appropriate fashion.
Clause 58 of the bill provides that the Director General of NSW Health may direct a licensee to engage an external expert to advise the licensee on the conduct of the facility. This power can be used only if the director general has reason to believe that the facility is not being conducted in accordance with the Act, the regulations, or a licensing standard. An external expert engaged under this provision would have a role similar to the role played by the Clinical Excellence Commission in respect of the public sector. The policy behind this provision reflects NSW Health's approach to working co-operatively with licensees to ensure that high standards are maintained in the interests of patient safety.
The provisions of the Private Health Facilities Bill provide the framework for an effective licensing and regulatory system for private health facilities in the twenty-first century. The Minister and I look forward to working co-operatively with industry and the professions in developing the licensing standards under the revised regulatory framework, to ensure that the public of New South Wales can continue to have confidence in the high standards and quality of services provided in the private hospital sector. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (VULNERABLE PERSONS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.04 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government is pleased to introduce the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Vulnerable Persons) Bill. The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to amend the existing provisions that govern the giving of evidence by children in certain proceedings, and extend those provisions to cover persons with an intellectual impairment. It is proposed to repeal the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 and insert those provisions into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, extending their application to intellectually impaired persons. It is considered more appropriate that these provisions are placed in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
This bill forms part of the Government's ongoing legal reforms in the area of sexual assault prosecution arising from the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce, and also the statutory review conducted by the department in June this year into the Evidence (Children) Act 1997. The task force report contained 70 recommendations, which not only focused on laws and procedures affecting the prosecution of sexual assault matters but also gave rise to more general concerns with respect to the protection of vulnerable witnesses within the criminal justice system. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4619
The task force recognised that people who have an intellectual disability or other cognitive impairment may be more vulnerable to sexual assault, particularly where they require assistance with their daily life activities. The task force report highlighted the need to provide greater protection to people with intellectual disabilities and other cognitive impairments, and to improve police investigations and the court process for those people. The task force also highlighted the need to provide further protections for children giving evidence in these types of situations, to prevent revictimisation. The rationale for introducing special arrangements for vulnerable witnesses recognises that such witnesses often suffer a deficit in the ability to communicate and find it harder to adapt to new environments and situations.
I turn now to the detail of the bill. Clauses 5 and 6 repeal both the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 and the Evidence (Children) Regulation 2004 respectively. These provisions will be transferred to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Item [1] of schedule 1 replaces section 76 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which concerned recorded interviews with children, transcripts of such recorded interviews, and access to the recorded interview. New section 76 substantially re-enacts those provisions and replaces references to "a child" or "children" with references to "vulnerable persons", thereby extending its application to persons with an intellectual impairment.
The key term of "vulnerable person" is defined in the new part 6 of chapter 6 to be a child or an intellectually impaired person. For the purposes of that part, a person is intellectually impaired if he or she has an appreciably below-average general intellectual functioning or a cognitive impairment—including dementia or autism—arising from, or as a result of, an acquired brain injury, neurological disorder or developmental disorder, or any other intellectual disability. The only change to the section is the insertion of proposed subsection (4), which enables the recording to be admitted in circumstances where the notice requirements set out in the regulations have not been complied with, provided that the parties consent, or the accused person or his or her representative has been given a reasonable opportunity to listen to or view the recording, and it is in the interests of justice. This amendment was one of the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce and was also highlighted in the statutory review of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 in June this year.
Item [2] of schedule 1 amends section 91 to provide that a complainant in certain sexual offence proceedings who is intellectually impaired will not be required to attend a committal. This amendment mirrors the protections already in place for child complainants in certain sexual offence proceedings, reducing the number of times such witnesses are subjected to cross-examination over the course of a sexual assault prosecution and reducing the retraumatisation associated with multiple court appearances. The amendment arises from the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce.
Item [3] of schedule 1 replaces the existing section 185, which concerns recorded interviews and transcripts of recorded interviews and how they can be used in evidence. Proposed new section 185 substantially re-enacts those provisions and extends their application to vulnerable persons. Item [4] of schedule 1 adds a note to the end of section 274 that makes clear that these provisions extend to certain civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. Items [5] to [12] make consequential amendments. Under the amendments, vulnerable complainants in prescribed sexual proceedings, being children and those who are intellectually impaired, now have an entitlement to the presence of a support person when giving evidence in camera—that is items [6] and [7]; are prevented from being cross-examined directly by an unrepresented accused person—item [8]; may use alternative arrangements for the giving of evidence, such as closed-circuit television, or the use of screens or planned seating arrangements in the courtroom—item [9]; and have a general entitlement to the presence of a support person as set out in section 294C when giving evidence in such proceedings—items [10], [11] and [12].
Item [13] of schedule 1 inserts new part 6 into chapter 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which deals with evidentiary matters. Proposed sections 306M to 306ZP concern the giving of evidence by vulnerable persons, defined as children and intellectually impaired persons. The new part substantially re-enacts the provisions of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 so as to enable the electronically recorded interviews made by investigating officials with a witness who is a vulnerable person, to be admitted into evidence as part the person's evidence in chief. For children these are commonly know as JIRT [joint investigation response team] interviews. The new part also confers an entitlement upon such vulnerable persons to give their evidence by means of closed-circuit television or other similar technology, rather than attending the proceedings to give oral evidence. Proposed section 306P sets out the circumstances in which new part 6 will apply to the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. In the case of a child, this is when the child is under the age of 16 at the time the evidence is given. 4620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
This provision has not changed from the Evidence (Children) Act 1997. In the case of intellectually impaired witnesses, the provisions will apply if the court is satisfied that the facts of the case may be better ascertained if the witness's evidence is given in such a manner. In making such a determination, the court will consider not only the quality of the evidence but also the effect of any stress or trauma associated with the witness giving his or her evidence in the ordinary way. There are some minor modifications contained in new part 6. Proposed section 306Q provides that the regulations may require an investigating official to record interviews with vulnerable persons. This replaces section 7 of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997, which requires an investigating official who questions a child in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence by the child or any other person to ensure that any representation made by the child in the course of the interview is recorded, if the investigating official considers it may be adduced as evidence in court.
Existing section 7, which sets out the requirements for the recording of interviews, will be moved to the regulations, and this will allow more flexibility in police operations and the ready adoption of new technologies when they become available. Proposed section 306U replaces and amends section 11 of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997, which allows the previously recorded statement of a child under the age of 16 years to be admitted in criminal proceedings as his or her evidence in chief, where he or she is over the age of 16 but less than 18 years of age. The proposed amendment expands these provisions to enable the recording to be admitted no matter what the age of the person at the time of the hearing. This proposed change is in response to a specific recommendation of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce. Subsection (4) of proposed section 306U also makes it clear that the provisions in subsection (3) requiring the vulnerable person to be available for cross-examination and re-examination do not apply to committal proceedings.
Proposed section 306V replaces section 12 of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 and concerns the admissibility of the recording of the vulnerable person's evidence. The amendment provides that despite a failure to comply with the notice requirements in the regulations, the recorded statement should be admitted if the parties consent, or if the accused has had an opportunity to view the recording, and it would be in the interests of justice to do so. This amendment also arises from the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce, as well as the Statutory Review of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 conducted by my department in June this year. The task force considered that the court should have a discretion whether to admit the evidence in circumstances where compliance with the notice provisions cannot be proved, provided that the accused has had an opportunity to view the recording, and it is in the interests of justice, or the parties consent. This would avoid a two-week delay, which the prosecution is obliged to seek in order to comply with the notice requirements. It would also bring these provisions in line with other judicial discretions.
Proposed section 306ZE replaces and amends section 21 of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997, which places a prohibition on children giving identification evidence by means of closed-circuit television or other similar technology. The child must be brought into court to give such evidence orally. Identification is often not a fact in issue in such proceedings, and the existing prohibition has been identified as unnecessarily problematic and has caused some practical difficulties, particularly where the child is giving evidence from a remote facility. The proposed amendment therefore retains the prohibition on giving identification evidence by way of closed-circuit television, but limits it to circumstances where identification is a fact in issue in the proceedings. Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to other Acts arising from the bill. The amendments contained in this bill will make it easier for children and persons with an intellectual impairment to give their evidence and provide greater protections from the stresses of the court process, as well as assisting them to give the best evidence they can give. I am sure the amendments will be welcomed by all members, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on introducing legislation for what I think is the last occasion under the current standing orders.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Consideration of Legislative Council Amendments
Motion by Mr Bryce Gaudry agreed to:
That the amendments made by the Legislative Council in all bills reported to date be considered in one Committee of the Whole. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4621
DEER BILL
MOUNT PANORAMA MOTOR RACING AMENDMENT BILL
STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. 2)
SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (WARRAGAMBA) BILL
CRIMES AND COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL
ADOPTION AMENDMENT BILL
EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.
Schedule of the amendments to the Deer Bill referred to in message of 25 October
No. 1 Page 2, clause 3 (1), line 9. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 2 Page 3, clause 4. Insert after line 18:
(4) Despite subsections (2) and (3), if a person other than an authorised officer captures a deer within 2 kilometres of the enclosure or other place (not being a vehicle) in which the deer was last held in captivity, property in the deer is not extinguished.
(5) Despite subsections (2), (3) and (4), any of the following persons (but no other persons) may kill a deer that is within 2 kilometres of the enclosure or other place (not being a vehicle) in which the deer was last held in captivity:
(a) an authorised officer, or
(b) an occupier of land, or
(c) a person authorised by a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)
No. 3 Page 5, clause 8 (1), line 3. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 4 Page 5, clause 8 (1) (a), line 7. Omit "eradicated, or otherwise controlled,". Insert instead "controlled".
No. 5 Page 5, clause 8 (1) (b), line 10. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 6 Page 5, clause 8, line 13. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 7 Page 5, clause 8. Insert after line 31:
(6) A deer control order must not specify the use of lethal poison as a manner in which deer are to be controlled.
No. 8 Page 5, clause 9 (1), lines 33–35. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(1) Before making a deer control order the Minister is to consult with each of the following:
No. 9 Page 5, clause 9 (1). Insert after line 35:
(a) the Department,
No. 10 Page 6, clause 12 (1), line 20. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 11 Page 9, clause 17 (1), line 3. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 12 Page 9, clause 17 (2), line 6. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 13 Page 9, clause 17 (2) (e), line 13. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 14 Page 10, clause 20, lines 7-10. Omit all words on those lines.
4622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
No. 15 Page 10, clause 21 (2), line 21. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 16 Page 11, clause 23 (1), line 32. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 17 Page 12, clause 23 (3) (c), line 7. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 18 Page 12, clause 24 (1), line 17. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 19 Page 12, clause 24 (2), line 19. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 20 Page 12, clause 24 (3), line 22. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 21 Page 12, clause 25 (1), line 26. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 22 Page 12, clause 25 (2), line 33. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 23 Page 13, clause 27, line 2. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 24 Page 15, clause 34, line 16. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
No. 25 Page 15, clause 34, line 17. Omit "Director-General". Insert instead "Minister".
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.18 a.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.18 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.
Schedule of the amendment to the Mount Panorama Motor Racing Amendment Bill referred to in message of 14 November
Page 5, Schedule 1 [12], proposed section 12A (b), lines 30 and 31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(b) the General Manager, Sport and Recreation, Department of the Arts, Sport and Recreation or such other member of staff of that Department as may be prescribed by the regulations instead of the General Manager.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.19 a.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendment be agreed to.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.19 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendment agreed to.
Schedule of the amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) referred to in message of 16 November
Pages 21 and 22, Schedule 1.22, from line 20 on page 21 to line 4 on page 22. Omit all words on those lines.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.20 a.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendment be agreed to.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.20 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendment agreed to. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4623
Schedule of the amendment to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Warragamba) Bill referred to in message of 16 November
Page 3, Schedule 1, lines 10 and 11. Omit "Map 687_1.2". Insert instead "Map 687_1.5".
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.20 a.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendment be agreed to.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.20 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose this amendment, which excludes from the original bill land on the left-hand side of the Warragamba River looking downstream from the dam. According to the Colong Foundation, which emailed me about this matter and spoke to my staff, this will protect the brush-tailed rock wallaby habitat in that part of Warragamba. The Opposition also consulted Wollondilly Shire Council General Manager Les McMahon, who said that the council only required land on the right-hand side of Warragamba Dam to build a new community centre.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendment agreed to.
Schedule of the amendments to the Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Bill referred to in message of 21 November
No. 1 Page 8, Schedule 1.7. Insert after line 1:
[1] Section 4A State Coroners and Deputy State Coroners
Omit "3" from section 4A (1). Insert instead "4".
No. 2 Page 11, Schedule 1.7. Insert after line 24:
Section 4A (1) of the Coroners Act 1980 enables the Governor to appoint up to 3 Deputy State Coroners. Item [1] will enable the Governor to appoint up to 4 Deputy State Coroners.
No. 3 Page 12, Schedule 1.8. Insert after line 24:
[4] Schedule 1, Part 5
Insert after Part 4:
Part 5 Provisions consequent on enactment of Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006
10 Application of amendment to definition of "sentence"
The amendment to the definition of sentence in section 3 (1) made by the Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006 extends to orders referred to in paragraph (ba) of that definition that were made before the commencement of that amendment, but does not affect any appeal proceedings or application under this Act that was finally determined before the commencement of that amendment.
No. 4 Page 12, Schedule 1.8, line 29. Insert "Item [4] ensures that the amendment extends to orders made before the commencement of that amendment." after "that Act.".
No. 5 Page 18, Schedule 1.10 [5]. Insert after line 21:
(2) The amendment to the definition of Sentence in section 2 (1) made by the Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006 extends to orders referred to in paragraph (ca) of that definition that were made before the commencement of that amendment, but does not affect any appeal proceedings that were finally determined before the commencement of that amendment.
No. 6 Page 19, Schedule 1.10, line 28. Insert "Item [5] includes a savings and transitional provision that ensures that the amendment extends to orders made before the commencement of that amendment." after "Act."
No. 7 Page 23, Schedule 1.11 [23]. Insert after line 5:
Changes to limitation period
Section 179 (3), as inserted by the Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006, extends to a summary offence that relates to the death of a person before the commencement of that subsection, but only if the period for 4624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
commencement of proceedings in relation to the offence under section 179 (1) has not expired on the commencement of section 179 (3).
No. 8 Page 23, Schedule 1.11. Insert after line 9:
Commencement
Items [20] and [21] of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation.
No. 9 Page 24, Schedule 1.11, line 4. Insert "Item [23] includes a savings and transitional provision that extends the amendment to summary offences committed before the commencement of that amendment if the existing limitation period has not expired." after "first.".
No. 10 Page 44, Schedule 1.19, lines 7–13. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
[1] Section 34 Preliminary conferences
Omit "(other than proceedings in Class 1 that are brought under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)" from section 34 (1).
[2] Section 34 (1A)
Omit section 34 (1A). Insert instead:
(1A) If proceedings are pending in Class 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction, the registrar may, at any time on the application of the parties or on the registrar’s own motion, arrange a conference between the parties to the proceedings or their representatives, to be presided over by a single Commissioner.
[3] Section 34 (3) (a)
Insert "and is to set out in writing the terms of the decision" after "decision" where lastly occurring.
[4] Section 34 (3A)
Insert after section 34 (3):
(3A) The Commissioner is to give written reasons for his or her decision under subsection (3) (b) (ii).
[5] Section 34A Proceedings to which on-site hearing procedures apply
Omit section 34A (1). Insert instead:
(1) This section applies to the following proceedings, if the proceedings have not been disposed of under section 34:
(a) proceedings in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction that are brought under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
(b) proceedings in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction that are brought under section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
(c) proceedings in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction that are brought under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
(d) proceedings in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction that are brought under section 121ZK of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,
(e) proceedings in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction that are brought under section 149F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
[6] Section 34A (2)
Omit "to which this section applies". Insert instead "under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979".
[7] Section 34A (2A)
Insert after section 34 (2):
(2A) Proceedings to which this section applies (other than proceedings under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) are to be dealt with under section 34B, subject to subsection (6), if the Registrar at the first or a subsequent callover determines that the proceedings:
(a) have little or no impact beyond neighbouring properties, and 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4625
(b) do not involve any significant issue of public interest beyond any impact on neighbouring properties.
[8] Section 34A (4)
Insert "or (2A)" after "(2)".
[9] Section 34A (4)
Insert ", subject to subsection (6)" after "34C".
[10] Section 36 Delegation to Commissioners
Omit "(other than proceedings in Class 1 that are brought under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)" from section 36 (1). Insert instead "(other than proceedings that are being dealt with under section 34A)".
[11] Section 37 Commissioners sitting with a Judge
Omit "(other than proceedings in Class 1 that are brought under section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)" from section 37 (1). Insert instead "(other than proceedings that are being dealt with under section 34A)".
Explanatory note
The proposed amendments to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979:
(a) will enable preliminary conferences to be held for all Class 3 matters in the Court rather than only compulsory acquisition matters, and
(b) will enable an extended range of matters to be dealt with by Commissioners at on-site hearings, namely proceedings under sections 96, 96AA, 97, 121ZK and 149F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and
(c) make other minor changes.
Legislative Council's amendments agreed to on motion by Mr Bryce Gaudry.
Schedule of the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill referred to in message of 21November
No. 1 Page 16, Schedule 1 [41], proposed section 63 (6) and (7), lines 32–38. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(6) The Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales, or a person employed in the office of and nominated by the Electoral Commissioner, is to be the returning officer for an election.
No. 2 Page 32, Schedule 1 [47], proposed section 106 (3) (g), lines 4 and 5. Omit "and between members of Regional Electoral Forums".
No. 3 Page 37, Schedule 1 [47], proposed section 116 (1) (b), lines 29 and 30. Omit ", Regional Electoral Forums".
No. 4 Page 40, Schedule 1 [47], proposed section 121 (3), line 24. Omit "Registrar". Insert instead "Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales, or a person employed in the office of and nominated by the Electoral Commissioner,".
No. 5 Page 51, Schedule 1 [56], proposed section 149 (4) (b), line 20. Omit "Registrar". Insert instead "Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales".
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.22 a.m.]: As shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I indicate that the Liberal Party and The Nationals will not oppose these amendments. I remind the House that after discussion with the Opposition and other interested parties a whole host of amendments was introduced by the Labor Government. The Opposition was concerned after the introduction of this bill that it was being rushed through Parliament, but circumstances intervened and we had a couple of weeks in which to have some discussions with various Aboriginal groups. As a result, whilst the Opposition is not entirely happy with the way the bill has gone through—we would have preferred there be some months of consultation and a draft bill drawn up to allow Aboriginal communities across the State to have a reasonable amount of time to consider the quite substantive changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act—nevertheless we have taken a bipartisan position and tried to be productive in allowing the Government to put in place this legislation. 4626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
The amendments, like a number of amendments in other bills, have come about because the bill was rushed through the Parliament and because the Government, in a sense, had to change quite a few of the provisions of its own bill. Perhaps there is a lesson in this for the future: that when we are dealing with Aboriginal legislation the government of the day—hopefully, a Coalition Government after March next year— should not rush through any legislation on these issues. The amendments, Nos 1 to 5, moved in globo, reflect the fact that the voting system was changed again in accordance with the requests of Aboriginal people. The Electoral Commission of New South Wales will now be allowed to conduct elections for land councils, rather than such elections being administered through the registrar. That makes sound policy sense, and the Coalition joins with the Government in agreeing to the amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.
Schedule of the amendments to the Adoption Amendment Bill referred to in message of 21 November
No. 1 Page 4, Schedule 1, line 11. Omit "welfare.". Insert instead "welfare, and".
No. 2 Page 4, Schedule 1. Insert after line 11:
(iii) in the case of an Aboriginal child, alternatives to placement for adoption have been considered in accordance with section 36.
No. 3 Page 7, Schedule 1, line 17. Omit "extends". Insert instead "does not apply".
No. 4 Page 7, Schedule 1, line 28. Omit "extends". Insert instead "does not apply".
Legislative Council's amendments agreed to on motion by Mr Bryce Gaudry.
Schedule of the amendments to the Education Legislation Amendment Bill referred to in message of 16 November
No. 1 Page 10, Schedule 1. Insert after line 15:
[9] Section 107 Applications for review of certain decisions
Insert after section 107 (1) (e):
(e1) a direction of the Director-General under Division 3 of Part 5A concerning the government schools in which a particular student may be enrolled,
No. 2 Page 10, Schedule 1. Insert after line 15:
[9] Section 107 Applications for review of certain decisions
Insert ", direction" after "recommendation" in section 107 (2).
No. 3 Page 10, Schedule 1. Insert after line 15:
[9] Section 108 Determination of application by the Tribunal
Insert ", direction" after "recommendation" in section 108 (1) (a).
No. 4 Page 10, Schedule 1. Insert after line 15:
[9] Section 108 Determination of application by the Tribunal
Insert after section 108 (1) (a):
(a1) in the case of an application for the review of a direction of the Director-General concerning the government schools in which a particular student may be enrolled—recommend to the Minister that the direction be varied or revoked, or
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.24 a.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4627
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.24 a.m.]: As the shadow Minister for Education, on behalf of the Coalition I indicate that we will not oppose these amendments. A number of amendments were made to the Education Legislation Amendment Bill, particularly to reflect the concerns of parents of children with a disability. The issues they raised were largely addressed by the Minister in this place, and during the Committee stage the Opposition asked various questions of the Minister to try to pin down her position in regard to safeguards for children with a disability to ensure they would not be moved unfairly and unreasonably into the behaviour schools that the Government is so keen on. The Opposition's position was that we wanted to make sure behaviour schools would not become the schools of choice for children with a disability.
The Minister gave certain assurances along those lines in the Committee stage of the bill but there was one issue that the Liberal and National parties did not manage to negotiate with the Government in the lower House, and that was the right of review. The parents of children with a disability, particularly as represented through groups such as People with Disabilities and Family Advocacy, were telling us and the Government that if a child is to be the subject of a direction by the director general that he or she be sent to a behaviour school, there should be some right of review. The Labor Government did not seem to think that was necessary, but the Opposition thought it was.
When the matter moved to the upper House, by way of further discussion and negotiation good sense prevailed and the Government agreed to this amendment. Under the bill as amended, if the parent of a child receives a direction that the child will be sent to a behaviour school that parent can seek a review of the decision by the director general. That is a sound and sensible policy position. It is a safeguard for children with a disability in our schools, and I think Family Advocacy and People with Disabilities will be pleased that this provision has been agreed to. It is amazing what can be achieved when the Government talks to the Opposition.
Regardless of which party is in government, discussions should take place. As the honourable member for Epping said this morning, sound public policy often comes out of being a little more transparent, a little more open, and a little more prepared to talk about what is a good policy outcome for the people of New South Wales. The Liberal and National parties are pleased that we have been able to support families of children with a disability and have made sure that the Education Legislation Amendment Bill at least has some of those safeguards in place so that, hopefully, children with a disability will not be disadvantaged in a move to behaviour schools.
Finally, I remind the House of the Opposition's position that we think the Government has failed miserably in not reviewing the outcomes achieved by these behaviour schools. At the moment the Labor Government is, in a wholesale way, supporting more and more behaviour schools being established, but no-one has sought to establish whether these schools are achieving the outcomes for children who have issues, whether they be emotional or behavioural. We again thank the Government for listening to us and the community on this issue. However, the Government should also address whether these behaviour schools are really in the best interests of students across the board. I indicate formally that we will not oppose the amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.
Resolutions reported from Committee and report adopted.
Messages sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolutions.
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
Fourth Day's Debate
Debate resumed from 30 August 2006.
Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [11.29 a.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution in reply to the Lieutenant-Governor's Speech on the official opening of this Parliament. Honourable members who have been in this place for some years would recall that the Address-in-Reply was once almost an annual event that provided Government members an opportunity to highlight projects being undertaken in their electorates and Opposition members an opportunity to speak about their own plans and policies. In past years the Address-in-Reply debate and the budget debate were the only opportunities some 4628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
members had to raise issues pertinent to their electorates. Unfortunately in recent times the debates have become more infrequent.
I congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor on his Speech, which was entertaining and rich in history. He spoke confidently about the Government's plans, and even included an inspiring and warm welcome from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. One aspect, as part of the sesquicentenary, was his comprehensive reference to this State's history of 150 years of responsible government, going back to 1856. I am somewhat biased but references to history are always of interest to Labor members and the trade union movement because Labor is very much a part of building this State.
I have often referred to the contribution of past Labor governments in the building of infrastructure and introducing important legislative reforms. I can back that statement with some facts to highlight some of the projects that prompted the Lieutenant-Governor to refer to so much of this State's history. Indeed, in his wonderful valedictory speech the honourable member for Wallsend touched on some when he spoke about the role of Labor and the trade union movement. He outlined the history of State Rail and the State Rail Authority. In September 2005 I gave a notice of motion about the anniversary of State Rail, which has played an enormous role in the history of the State. Labor governments past and present have contributed enormously to the rail infrastructure in this State. The Lieutenant-Governor made reference to transport and, although I shall not repeat the recent announcements of the Minister for Transport, there will be a massive increase in rolling stock in this State.
My notice of motion asked the House to note the rolling stock that had been introduced over the years. I referred to the introduction of the Millennium train in July 2002 by the Carr Labor Government. The Coalition criticised the Millennium train, which is not surprising, because every initiative of a Labor government, past and present, is criticised by the Coalition in this State. I referred also to the introduction of the Tangara train in 1987-88 by the Unsworth Labor Government in the run-up to the 1988 State election, at which, unfortunately, Labor was defeated. The XPT, which is still very much part of the rail network in this State, was introduced in 1981 by the great Wran Labor Government. The Tulloch double-decker suburban trains were introduced in 1964, a project of both the Heffron and Renshaw Labor governments. Even that great icon of State Rail, the 3801 Express, was introduced in 1943 by the McKell Labor Government.
It would be unfair and ungracious of me not to admit that in the late 1930s a non-Labor government— I forget what they were called in those days, perhaps the United Australia Party or the Nationalist Party, before they formed the Liberal Party—introduced the Silver City Comet. That was the last time I could find where the fingerprints of a Coalition or a non-Labor government was on major rolling stock introduced into this State. However, it was also a Coalition Government under Nick Greiner that got rid of the Silver City Comet. The Coalition did not just get rid of the rolling stock; it got rid of the whole service. The Carr Labor Government reinstated the rail service to Broken Hill, which highlights the role that Labor has played. Rail and Transport will always be big portfolios that attract the attention of the Coalition, particularly in the lead-up to elections, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is Labor that always has the runs on the board.
The Lieutenant-Governor referred to many aspects of this State's history. He spoke about the economy, the budgets and deficits over past years, and the building of the State. Again, I speak in support of the Labor governments. Honourable members need only take a bus trip around Sydney or around New South Wales to see the many major projects, such as the irrigation schemes in the Murrumbidgee. How many members of this House remember the great Darling Harbour project of the 1980s? Of course, the main critic of that project was the Greiner Coalition in opposition, which sought to find a scandal virtually every day in this Parliament about that project. Of course, when the Coalition came to office Nick Greiner was happy enough to officially open Darling Harbour. Nevertheless, in opposition he attacked the project day in day out, but Darling Harbour is very much a part of the Sydney landscape and a great boost to tourism.
Last night the honourable member for Wallsend referred to Sydney Opera House, which the Coalition sought to belittle at the time. Joe Cahill, the then Premer, should be commended for the role he played in getting that project off the ground. The Snowy Mountains scheme was a joint program by the McKell and Chifley governments that was strongly opposed by Menzies in opposition, but, of course, Menzies officially opened it some years later. It is amazing how the attitude of the Coalition changes on coming to office.
I will refer not only to capital works, concrete, and bricks and mortar. I shall refer only briefly to legislative reforms; there are too many to detail in the time available. Looking back over the past 150 years, one of the great Premiers of this State was John Thomas Lang, otherwise known as Jack Lang. His legislative record 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4629
for the amount of days he was in office is probably unmatched. Much more legislation was introduced during the Wran and Carr years. We could probably have a great debate about which government was the most prominent in introducing legislation, but in terms of the number of reforms in the shortest time Jack Lang's record will be pretty hard to beat. To use a boxing analogy, pound for pound, Jack Lang was probably the best.
Jack Lang introduced the widows pension and unemployment programs, which are still a big part of solving training issues today. Indeed, it was an unemployment program, with borrowings by the State Government, that gave us concrete on Parramatta Road. Jack Lang also introduced workers compensation, which was seen as radical at the time. Because private insurance companies did not want to recognise that facility, Lang established the Government Insurance Office to provide workers compensation. Who can forget the Moratorium Act, which assisted tenants during the Depression who were being evicted from their homes. All these things are part of the rich history to which the Lieutenant-Governor referred. I recognise the achievements of Jack Lang.
How could we ignore the fantastic reforms of the Wran-Unsworth Labor governments from 1976 until 1988? I refer to the election of members to the upper House. A Labor Government decided that Legislative Council members should be elected by the people and not appointed by a majority government. Under the Carr Government, the national parks scheme and the delivery of massive legislative powers to the police force are two highlights of the Lieutenant-Governor's references to the State's rich history. The Lieutenant-Governor referred to many portfolios, including Education. I refer to such things as small class sizes, the literacy and numeracy gains in our public schools, and Chifley College in Mount Druitt, which is a senior high school concept for which my Federal member, Roger Price, and I fought for many years. More recent bricks and mortar projects include new libraries at Rooty Hill and Eastern Creek.
In Law and Justice, Mount Druitt has a new courthouse and a new Department of Community Services office. I thank former Transport Ministers Scully and Costa for allocating $12 million to a project to provide easy access to Mount Druitt railway station. I will close my contribution on that. The Lieutenant-Governor's Speech highlighted that the Government has plans for progress. The 12 years of this Labor Government are a good subject for another day, but the 12 years of the current Opposition can be highlighted by a period of great division and inaction on policy. I congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor on his Speech. I am pleased to have made this contribution, which was a bit longer than I intended.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Mount Druitt about the great Jack Lang.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [11.43 a.m.]: Jack Lang was greatly responsible for building the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Unfortunately, as we know, he did not get the opportunity to open the bridge. Indeed, it was at the Lane Cove picture theatre where I think Colonel Campbell promised that Lang would not open the bridge. And, of course, two weeks later the New Guard decided to carry on with its disgraceful act.
It is with great pleasure that I join in celebrating the sesquicentenary of our Parliament. Together with the Lieutenant-Governor, I welcomed the message from Her Majesty about the wonderful job this Parliament has done over the past 150 years. I shall refer to my local area and provide a bit of background into New South Wales as a whole. For example, prior to the arrival of the First Fleet, it is important to acknowledge that the original inhabitants at Lane Cove were the Cameraygal group of the Ku-ring-gai Aboriginal tribe. Once the white settlers arrived, Lieutenant Ralph Clark first landed not far from the entrance to Lane Cover River on 14 February 1790.
There are a number of possibilities for the origin of the Lane Cove name. I thank the Lane Cove Historical Society for providing this information. The first written use of the name was by Lieutenant William Bradley after he sailed along the river in 1788. Some have argued that it was named after Lieutenant Michael Lane, a respected cartographer who once worked with Captain Cook. Others say it was in honour of John Lane, who was the son of the London Lord Mayor at the time, as well as a good friend of the first Governor, Arthur Phillip. In any case, the name stuck, and by the 1800s it was being used to refer to all the land north of the river. Subsequently my seat of Lane Cove holds that name.
The Lieutenant-Governor referred to planning and health in New South Wales. It is important, particularly for my local area, that the Lane Cove Tunnel is about to be opened. As honourable members know, the Government has refused to filter the Lane Cove Tunnel. It is Coalition policy to filter all tunnels in Sydney. I put on record the good work of Mad As—Mums and Dads Against Stacks—which has taken a stand. As we all 4630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
know, fine particulates cannot be seen but can travel a number of kilometres and stay in the atmosphere for weeks. These are the facts about this type of pollution. Stack emissions from the Lane Cove Tunnel will strike at ground level. Exactly where will depend on wind speed, direction and temperature. There is no safe threshold for exposure to fine particulate pollution.
Even short-term exposure can have health effects. For example, in people with existing heart disease or cancer—one in five lung cancers in American cities is caused by these fine particulates—it can induce heart attacks. Children living around these stacks have reduced lung development, and arrested foetal development has been documented in studies overseas. Eye, nose and throat symptoms will be experienced by healthy people. In fact, a Health Department study found a 17 per cent to 30 per cent increase in these symptoms for people living near the M5 East tunnel. The problem is that there are no enforceable standards in place with respect to the permissible level of these emissions. For example, nitrogen dioxide is capable of triggering asthma attacks. Ultra-fine particulates are soluble in the lungs.
Tunnel filtration works, and is used in other countries such as Japan and Norway. In fact, 92.6 per cent of fine pollution particulates down to 0.03 microns in size can be successfully removed. People living in Artarmon, Boronia Park, Chatswood, Crows Nest, Greenwich, Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Naremburn, Northwood, Osborne Park, Riverview, Ryde, St Leonards and Willoughby will be affected by pollution from the Lane Cove Tunnel. I appreciate the work of Dr Ray Carney and the people from the Lane Cove Tunnel action group, and most importantly Mad As, which is doing its best to look after local children.
The Lieutenant-Governor spoke about Labor's State Plan. Let us be under no misconception. The so-called New South Wales Labor State Plan—albeit the latest ploy, which is a plan for a plan to lower the bar and community expectations on New South Wales' future performance and prosperity—has come through on this. The State Plan—again, a plan for a plan—released by this Government in August entrenches the New South Wales lack of competitiveness with other States, locks in high taxes and specifically rejects setting performance targets because there is no real commitment to improving New South Wales public sector performance and outlook. The plan has no visionary or innovative directions. Basically it squibs on major issues such as tax reform and sets the lowest possible expectations, all of which are bad news for business investments and job growth in New South Wales.
Among the failures of the plan is the failure to mention tax reduction amongst its priorities, failure to admit inferior performance compared with other States and to fix the problem, failure to make home affordability a priority, and failure to recommit to an earlier promise to implement a new budget strategy in 2008-09. Indeed, this document weakens the earlier commitment by not including a timetable. It fails to constructively address business and planning regulatory overload. It is misleading on key economic indicators and fails to acknowledge job losses and business closures as a result of a self-induced property market slow-down and slow competitiveness. It contradicts the Government's February 2006 commitment to prepare for a whole new budget process system in 2008-09, with a wind-back to a general statement of intent with no timetable.
The best that can be said of the State's performance is that it is unsuccessful, and fails to acknowledge that New South Wales has been the leading economy in the nation and should expect to be so again. There is no commitment to a comprehensive public sector performance and benchmarking regime, which would compare New South Wales public sector performance with national, overseas and private competitors. None of Labor's other plans have been delivered, and I am certain—indeed, I would bet London to a brick on it—that this will be the same.
The Lieutenant-Governor also spoke about infrastructure. I will be brief because I know some other good gentlemen in the House also want to make an address-in-reply speech today. Labor has failed to maintain and renew infrastructure over the past 12 years, and that is hurting people in New South Wales and in my community on a daily basis. The road networks are clogged and congested. The Cross City Tunnel has basically become a symbol of what is wrong with this Government. The New South Wales network has run down. Buses and ferries are constantly failing to deliver the services the community needs.
Electricity substations are failing and there is no plan to increase generation capacity now or into the future. New South Wales' water infrastructure is badly in need of maintenance and upgrading, as are our storm and wastewater systems. Our social infrastructure—our hospitals, schools, preschools and basic community services—are all suffering from underinvestment and neglect. The poor condition of our infrastructure is one of 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4631
the main reasons our economy is slow. High-quality, well-planned, accessible infrastructure is the essential foundation of economic growth.
The Labor Government raked in record tax revenues over the past decade but failed to invest them in much-needed infrastructure. The Government has conceded that it handled capital works planning poorly in the past, with cost blow-outs and delays. Labor has proven to my constituents and others in New South Wales that it is incapable of managing our State's infrastructure needs, and if we are given another four years of Labor it will continue to run down New South Wales infrastructure even further.
I am pleased to say that a New South Wales Coalition government—and my constituents are very happy with this—will revitalise investment in infrastructure and rebuild New South Wales. This needs to be done to restore the New South Wales economy. Our infrastructure is central to achieving a competitive advantage for New South Wales. A Coalition government will reform the way infrastructure is delivered in New South Wales, to improve outcomes and reduce costs to New South Wales taxpayers. It will ensure there is a clear public infrastructure plan for metropolitan Sydney and New South Wales that sets out priorities and projects for the near and long term.
It will also use the best of our successful Olympic Co-ordination Authority model to deliver a whole-of-government approach to major infrastructure projects. It will adopt the best of Partnerships UK model of public-private interface in a Partnerships New South Wales equity. Its job will be to determine the best finance vehicle for each project on its merits across a spectrum of options from full Treasury debt funding to full private funding. Each project will be funded in a way that delivers optimum public value and outcomes for taxpayers and the community, by allocating risk and responsibility appropriately in any partnership. The Coalition is committed to lifting the standards of public administration, particularly in infrastructure delivery.
The Lieutenant-Governor also spoke about the economy in New South Wales. Once again, we have seen over nearly 12 years that this Labor Government has reaped record property taxes and millions of dollars in revenue but has yet failed to deliver on its election promises. Labor has plunged the budget into a $696 million deficit, and the burden of red tape and regulation on New South Wales businesses is a major reason for New South Wales' poor economic performance.
I also advise the House that we are continuing to fight over-development within my electorate—at the Royal Ryde Rehabilitation Centre, Sydney—where the Minister for Planning has overridden council controls and has imposed 800 new dwellings in an area where the infrastructure barely copes with the people who live there now. For example, Morrison Road in my electorate is 300 per cent over Roads and Traffic Authority figures for maximum capacity but the Minister intends to put another 1,453 vehicular movements through my local streets every peak hour. Once again I commend His Excellency on what was a magnificent speech. I look forward to joining with my colleagues in congratulating this House on a magnificent 150 years of service.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [11.53 a.m.]: I thank the honourable members for Mount Druitt and Lane Cove for their contributions. They obviously took different sides of the debate, but that is the nature of parliamentary democracy. As has been recognised by all, the Lieutenant-Governor's speech is an outline of the program of the Government of the day, so obviously the Opposition is entitled to make some criticism of it. As the Lieutenant-Governor highlighted in May, this is the sesquicentenary of responsible government in this State, and during this year there have been many events that gave great credit to this Parliament, and particularly this Chamber of this Parliament, as the mother of all parliaments. The Lieutenant-Governor's Speech highlighted what was a very good year and I congratulate all those involved. Many of us on both sides of the Chamber know the people involved in celebrating the 150th year of this Chamber.
I want to talk briefly—because I know there are some important things to do shortly—about some aspects of the Lieutenant-Governor's Speech that might relate to my electorate. One was the economy, which was also referred to by the honourable member for Lane Cove. His figures are not inaccurate to a point but since those figures were released in December last year there have been further reviews of the financial state of the New South Wales Government. The economy is still growing, though it has slowed a bit. One of the causes of that is the increase in interest rates, over which the State Government has no control. This was despite promises made at the last Federal election that interest rates would be kept low only under a Federal Coalition government. Also, the fact that we still do not receive our fair share of the GST has caused some difficulties with the bottom line of the budget. 4632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Notwithstanding that, this Government has spent record amounts of money on infrastructure—on transport, trains and buses and roads. Only the other day the largest-ever commitment was made to buy rolling stock, trains and carriages, for the Hunter area. My colleague the honourable member for Newcastle might allude to that. Also, the dam that has been announced will help the Hunter and the Central Coast. This Government spends $27 million a day on infrastructure, which upgrades our schools, hospitals, roads and railways, but we have to recognise also that we cannot keep building new things. We have to maintain older infrastructure. When responsible government is 150 years old it realises that although it builds new things, after a while it has to maintain them and keep them in good repair. A lot of the Government's infrastructure work is in drains and their equivalent. It is underground, and people do not see it. However, if the Government does not do that, it cannot erect buildings and railways above it. New work has been done in signalling and in all sorts of areas.
The honourable member for Lane Cove spoke about the Lane Cove Tunnel and the Cross City Tunnel. I was in the Cross City Tunnel the other day. It was a great way to cross from one part of the city to another in no time at all. The trouble is I do not need to do that more than four or five times a year. If I were doing that many trips a day, the company might not be in the trouble it is in. However, the vision was there and the drive was great. Mr Acting Speaker, who it now seems, will be able to interject favourably on our comments, might agree that not all of us believe in these private-public partnerships that were once lauded to us, and he might add that we should be more careful about how we allocate our spending and what commitment we make to the private sector to manage government areas that I believe the Government should have more to do with.
I will speak briefly about the Clearways program. We are spending $1.5 billion to untangle what is a spaghetti-like railway structure that has grown up in Sydney. We are fortunate in my electorate that we have the Revesby turn-back on which work has begun at a cost of $99 million. That will include drainage works, the installation of special fencing, an extra platform, an extra railway line and, most importantly for my older commuters, easy access facilities—lifts—to get to the platforms. For years people had to walk up and down long lengths of steps. That is an important initiative.
The Government has also made a great commitment to spend money on mental health. This was outlined even more this morning by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). Last week I had the honour of being with the Hon. John Della Bosca, the Minister for Disability Services, when he announced $500,000 expenditure for a new occupational health and safety program in the disability sector. That was announced at Condell Park in my electorate, with the Disability Services Australia organisation. This money will help dedicated professionals working in this sector to provide essential services such as home-based support, supported employment and accommodation, and respite services for those with a disability and their carers.
I have constantly raised the issue of school safety and the Lieutenant-Governor referred to it in his Speech. In the past six weeks Panania Public School and Padstow Park Public School have been completely security fenced. Most of the schools in my electorate are now security fenced. Local members need to twist the arms of our Ministers, and I am pleased with that achievement. Panania Public School had faced vandal problems, which were identified in the media last week. Since the erection of a security fence, the school has reported no break-ins over the weekend and has already saved thousands of dollars in insurance payments and no further loss of valuable school resources and student work. I recognise the extra work the Government has done in this area. The Government has provided a teacher's aide for every IO class in each special school. Last night in the House I referred to ongoing needs. There is no doubt that the Government is attending to those needs.
I want to refer to another great achievement in my electorate which was announced by the Government this year. Two or three years ago a preschool in my area was closed down. With the support of the Minister for Community Services and the former Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, Kindergarten Union Children's Services took over the running of the preschool centre at Playford Park, Padstow. Although it has taken some time, the centre was officially opened by the Minister for Community Services and me last week. I thank both Ministers for the role they played in the opening of the centre. After the original amount of funding, we needed more and the Minister for Community Services came good with it. It is an operation worth nearly $2 million. Child care is a necessity. I also thank Bankstown City Council, which saw the need and offered a grant of land. The centre is a great asset to the community.
My electorate has a new shopper hopper bus service. When looking at new bus routes to service more people and take them directly to major hubs, it was found that many elderly people do not live on major bus 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4633
routes. The shopper hopper bus service unites the Milperra, Padstow, Revesby and Padstow shopping centres. Although not everyone is totally happy with it, many elderly people have contacted my office and thanked us for the service. It means they can catch a bus in the morning to any of the four shopping centres and return in the afternoon. That is another great achievement in our area. The Government's policy on respect and responsibility is an important one, although it is not necessarily tied to law and order. As honourable members know, there is a continuing need to refresh and rearm our police force. The Government's commitment of 750 new police on the beat by January next year is well on the way. In September 316 police were employed and another 434 will be ready to go in January next year. That is an important Government initiative.
Our elderly population is increasing. The issues involving the elderly are difficult, particularly with the Federal Government not playing its part. I recently attended a function at Bankstown Hospital when the hospital received an award for its new general practice centre, which is located in the emergency department. The Iemma Government has set up after-hours general practice centres in our hospitals. That initiative has reduced waiting times in emergency departments. The new centres will treat people with less serious conditions, thereby freeing up hospital emergency facilities for more serious cases. All honourable members would be aware that many general practitioners no longer open late or make home visits. As a result, people turn up at emergency departments with complaints that are not serious.
I do not claim that they are not entitled to do that and to ask for treatment, but in many cases they can be treated by general practitioners. With the establishment of the after-hours general practice centres the emergency department has a fast-track zone where people with minor illnesses are separated from those with serious complaints. Medical staff can attend to those patients more quickly and get a medical plan in practice as soon as possible. That new direction in emergency care targets emergency departments and the fast treatment of patients. Elective surgery waiting lists have been reduced as a result of 800 extra nurses and 700 new permanent hospital beds. I congratulate the nurses and staff at Bankstown Hospital on winning a 2006 Baxter Award for their quick turnaround times and the effective way in which they work.
As the Lieutenant-Governor said in his Speech, the Government is honouring its commitments to our electorates. We are proud to acknowledge that our schools are getting their fair share, police number are increasing and our hospital services are working well. In my electorate, for example, extra lanes on Alfords Point Bridge will unite my electorate with the Menai electorate. So much money is being spent on those initiatives that I do not believe any member could complain that they are not getting their fair share.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Wayne Merton.
VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.06 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): In what may be my last speech in this House as the Labor member for Newcastle, I want to thank the people of the Newcastle electorate, who have entrusted me to be their representative for four successive terms since my election to Parliament on 25 May 1991. It has been my privilege to hold that trust and to work for the betterment of the city and the great people who make up our community. In those 15 years Newcastle people have bounced back from the impact of the earthquake and the closure of BHP. They have celebrated the success of the Knights in two premierships, witnessed the building of the east grandstand at EnergyAustralia stadium, which was funded by a $32 million State grant, held strong opinions on the burgeoning development of the Honeysuckle project and continued, as always, to be a passionate and caring community, willing to give a helping hand to the needy and to stand up for their rights.
I am proud of my role in the campaign to keep our power industry in public hands, maintain electric rail services to Newcastle, secure the green corridor from the Watagans to the sea, ensure the building of our world-class acute care hospital system in Newcastle, convince the Government to fund the EnergyAustralia stadium and support the rail building industry in Newcastle. I have always upheld the rights of ordinary citizens in their relationship with governments. I made my first speech in this place on 17 September 1991 in opposition to the Greiner Government's industrial relations bill. I said in that debate:
This bill will turn order into chaos. The workers of the State accept the need for the changes in work practices and re-skilling necessary to make this country cost competitive. They will not accept a process that drives wages and conditions down to subsistence level. They will not give away their right to organise and the democratic right to withdraw their labour when they are being exploited in the workplace. 4634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
I regarded the legislation as a mechanism that would impact on the fundamental concept of a fair go, which has characterised our industrial relations system. In my view at that time unemployed workers subject to family responsibilities and mortgage payments would be forced to accept substandard conditions and rates of pay keep their families together.
Those words ring true today as the High Court endorses the repugnant Howard Government's WorkChoices legislation and its stripping away of long fought for conditions of employment that have ensured fairness in our industrial relations and fair outcomes for workers and their families. That is why I will join with thousands of community members on 30 November to take the next step in the only campaign that can now redress this issue—the Your Rights at Work Campaign—to remove the current Federal Government and re-institute a fair industrial relations system. That campaign will require the determination and solidarity shown by the Boeing workers in their nine-month stand for the right to collectively bargain for fair wages and conditions. In the words of Bob Marley, it is time again to "Get Up—Stand Up, Stand up for Your Rights".
Yesterday in the Parliament the Premier announced the final agreement with James Hardie and introduced legislation to ensure a just outcome for the victims of asbestos-related diseases contracted as a result of using James Hardie products. That outcome is a triumph for the determination of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia [ADFA], supported by the New South Wales Government, in confronting the dereliction of duty of James Hardie and dragging it to accept its responsibility. I am proud to have contributed in Parliament and in public on this issue, marching with ADFA members and the unions to confront the James Hardie annual general meeting. Congratulations to Greg Combet, Bernie Banton, Barry Robson, Bob Carr, Morris Iemma and all involved in gaining justice for sufferers of mesothelioma and asbestosis, their families and carers.
These are issues that distinguish the Labor Party from the Opposition. I applaud the policy directions taken by Premier Morris Iemma to improve services in health, especially mental health services, disability services and housing, with a special emphasis on aged housing in our community. I have enjoyed the camaraderie and policy development of my time in Parliament to date and my friendship with members on both sides of the House. The lead-up to the win by Labor in 1995 and the groundbreaking environmental and planning legislation in the period thereafter was particularly exciting. In the period leading to the win I enjoyed working with Craig Knowles, Kim Yeadon and Pam Allan in developing a package to secure a balance between conservation of our environmental resources and a sustainable forest industry.
There is no doubt that the greatest challenge facing the planet is climate change and the greenhouse issue. Australians lead the world in per capita contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. We have a responsibility as a Government and as individuals to work towards limiting our dependence on fossil fuels, as well as using technology to replace them. No member of this Parliament was more committed to the urgency of that issue or more competent to put into effect legislative change to meet its challenge than Kim Yeadon. His work as Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Forestry and Minister for Energy, displayed a deep knowledge and commitment to issues of sustainability. His legislation made New South Wales a world leader in the areas of greenhouse gas abatement and carbon trading.
I have had the privilege through my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Premier and the Ministers for Police, Emergency Services, Education and Training, Aboriginal Affairs and Planning to travel throughout New South Wales to listen to community needs and represent the Ministers and Government and its programs. I particularly treasure my contact with the Aboriginal community, which has yet to share fully in the benefits of this State. Its resilience in difficult circumstances and its work towards reconciliation uplifts me. I will never forget the day that Mrs Nancy de Vries addressed this House on her experience as a member of the stolen generation.
I have learnt much through my Chairmanship of the oversight Committee of the Police Integrity Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman. The committee had great service from its secretariat of Helen Minnican and Tanya Bosch. In my role as chairman I had the opportunity of inspecting police activities in a number of overseas countries, which served to emphasise the quality of the New South Wales service. My role as the sole parliamentary representative on the New South Wales Coastal Council put me in contact with a dedicated group of public servants and community members under the chairmanship of Professor Bruce Thom. That group has been instrumental in developing the New South Wales coastal policy. In all my dealings with public servants I have been impressed by their professionalism and dedication to achieving outcomes, often in difficult circumstances of departmental amalgamation and downsizing. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4635
There have, of course, been highs and lows in my time in Parliament, but none was more crushing than the appalling move away from the principle of natural justice displayed last week in this House. It is with regret that both sides of this House moved with undue speed to strip the publicly funded superannuation benefits away from a former member of this House facing serious criminal charges. The legislation now passed impacts not only on the capacity to finance a defence but also to support a family. I fail to see the service of justice in that approach. It is the courts that have responsibility to judge guilt or innocence, unhindered by the Parliament or the media.
There are many challenges in the life of members of Parliament as they attempt to provide a service to their communities, promote business growth, protect the environment, participate in the policy and legislative programs of government or the tough work of Opposition, and be available to respond to the many needs of individuals in their electorates. Finding the balance in all of this without it impacting on family life is a great challenge. While I have tried to find this balance, I am the first to admit that I have not always been successful and thank my family for their support and tolerance. For all of us the family is the font of our support and strength.
My wife, Barbara, has been "the wind beneath my wings" throughout my parliamentary career and our 41 years of marriage. Her strength in her fight against leukaemia and her insistence that I continue to campaign throughout her illness and treatment in 1990-91 inspires me still. She is at times both my rod and my staff. I have always enjoyed the love and support of my family, Justine and Brooke and their partners, Jason and Patrick, and our four feisty grandchildren, Hannah, Jesse, Lily and Luella. Barbara's parents, Joyce and Rex, are great examples of continuing active community involvement into their 80s and 90s. I honour the memory of my parents, George and Aura Gaudry, and my grandmother, Mary Ellen Wellings. As a child I saw my father stand up for the rights of his fellow workers and engage with them in political debate.
My political life began as a community and environmental activist. I was a Teachers Federation representative in all of the schools in which I taught. I enjoyed a fulfilling 28-year career as a teacher. I entered this House aged 48 with a strong commitment to Labor's principles of social justice, the value of trade unions in ensuring fair outcomes in the workplace and a commitment to equitable access to education, health and public transport services and the essential power and water services.
Like many of my generation I grew up in frugal circumstances—my parents raising six children on a forestry worker's pay. I spent my childhood years in a dual family situation living as a companion to my grandmother at night and joining my family in the day. My years with Grandma taught me a great deal about the issues of ageing and the importance of remaining connected to the community. She was 82 when I left Kendall to attend Newcastle Teachers College. She was both my protector and my mentor, shielding me from the harsher aspects of life and promoting my love of reading and through it my access to education. Our social life in the small community of Kendall revolved around the Catholic Church. Through its influence I absorbed the social justice principles that I adhere to today.
In my view people join a political party in Australia because of their belief in its philosophy and principles, and to participate in its policy discussion, support its causes and take part in its democratic processes—not to be mere ciphers. In this regard I want to place on record my enormous gratitude to the members of the Australian Labor Party in Newcastle, who have shown me great support over my entire political career and continue to campaign for their democratic right to participate in the selection of candidates for public office. Despite their support, unlike the majority of members leaving this Parliament I was disendorsed by the most undemocratic method one could envisage—a 7-13 vote by the National Executive of the Labor Party, 17 of whom do not even live in New South Wales.
In the Labor Party the State Electorate Council delegates and its executive consolidate the work of branches, strengthen policy discussion and lend support to the member of Parliament. I thank the many delegates of the Newcastle State Electorate Council for their unwavering support over my four terms in Parliament. I particularly thank presidents Adrian Lewis and Marilyn Eade and Tim Crakanthorp, the current State Electorate Council Secretary, and the members of the executive for their dedicated service to Labor's cause. The use of the Corporations Law by the Federal Government in its WorkChoices approach to industrial relations is reflective of moves within governments and political parties of all persuasions to centralise and corporatise the operations of public life. [Extension of time agreed to.]
The more that happens the greater is the influence of spin over substance in public life and the more irrelevant the direct representatives of the people become. No member of Parliament can handle the 4636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
complexities of the role without the assistance of highly committed electorate staff. I cannot speak highly enough of the loyalty, hard work and compassion shown by my electorate officers John Gurr, Marina Matwejev and Bruce Jones, and those relief staff that have assisted me over the years. John and Marina joined me in 1991 and will both receive 15-year service awards this week. Marina now works for the member for Strathfield. They have been the mainstays of my office, as has Bruce, who has been with me for six years.
Many people who come to our office are in crisis. Issues of homelessness, mental health and housing stress are a constant reminder of the difficulties facing our community and the pressure it places on electorate staff and the departmental officers charged with trying to deliver services. These pressures cause emotional wear and tear on our dedicated staff as they work with compassion to assist our constituents and support our efforts in the Parliament and in the community. I thank also to the Labor team of parliamentary stenographers—Helen Bennett, Barbara Dixon and Christine Czintos— who have always been ready with help and friendship. The operations of Parliament would grind to a halt without the dedicated work of the entire support staff who give great service, despite the cuts imposed on their budgets.
My time here has been marked by the professionalism, service and friendship of the parliamentary staff—from the Clerks to the caring men and women who keep our offices clean and shipshape. To Greg McGill, Gladys Kleiner and the accounts staff, thank you for your forbearance and your patience in unravelling my accounts. To the staff of the Procedure Office, Employee Services and Member Services, thank you for your consistent attention to our needs. To Greg Kelly and the officers who support our work in the Parliament, thank you very much. Greig Tillotson and the library staff have always been prepared to research issues for me and provide vital information in the shortest time period. In my years in Parliament information technology has moved forward more rapidly than my capacity to fully utilise its great range of services—and I note that I share that view with the honourable member for Epping, who spoke this morning. The staff at Parliament's Information Technology Services are always on hand to deal with the many glitches that I encounter in trying to expand my skills in this area.
I marvel at the skill of the Hansard staff, who manage to cut through the noise and tumult of question time and translate our disjointed words into thoughtful statements. If an army marches on its stomach we march on the skill, attention and service of the catering staff. David, Joseph, Maureen, Carlos and the food and beverages staff have always provided the best level of service to members and visitors alike, once again despite the savage cuts within that area. I lament the departure of many of our best people from the food and beverages staff on redundancies. I also particularly mention the situation of David Draper and congratulate those members who invited David back for a farewell dinner with members of Parliament. My appreciation goes to every worker in Parliament for the way they have supported me in my time here. In my first letter to the electors of Newcastle, which was on the back of a card showing a fantastic view of Newcastle Cathedral from the great city of Stockton, I said:
Newcastle has the people, skills and environment to have a great future.
We must have the confidence, commitment and community teamwork to make sure it happens.
I am committed to Newcastle.
If elected I guarantee to be straight with you, and to work hard for our community.
I'll certainly stand up and fight for our fair share.
I'll fight for industry/education/training for our men and women in road, rail and ferry services/health homecare and a better environment for us all.
I believe that I have stood by that compact throughout my parliamentary career.
CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF REPLY
Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.25 p.m.]: I move:
That clause (1) of the sessional order relating to the citizen's right of reply, as agreed to by this House on 22 May 2006, be amended to read as follows:
(1) That where a submission is made in writing by a person who has been referred to in the Legislative Assembly by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified: 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4637
(a) claiming that the person or corporation has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person or corporation; and
(b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in Hansard,
and the Speaker is satisfied:
(c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee;
(d) the submission was received within 6 months after the relevant comments were made in the House unless the applicant can show exceptional circumstances to explain the delay; and
(e) that it is practicable for the committee to consider the submission under this resolution,
the Speaker shall refer the submission to that Committee.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.26 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this amendment of the sessional orders. Frankly, it clarifies and clears up the intent of the citizens' right of reply, which, of course, is an important process to enable members of the public who might feel aggrieved by statements made about them in this place to have an opportunity to have a rebuttal considered by the Speaker for inclusion on the parliamentary record. It has been said at differing times that the privilege that is given to members of Parliament is a profound privilege and its use should be weighed carefully. I suspect, and my view is, that most members of Parliament, if not all members of Parliament, do that in the exercise of that privilege.
Equally, this proposal was introduced a number of years ago to so that more accountability would be evident in relation to the activities of this Chamber. That is a principle that every member of this House should agree with. It is of concern, though, when issues were raised in the House perhaps in 2003 or 2004 and complaints were not received until 2006. This proposal seeks to ensure that there is a limit on the time during which members of the public can seek redress under the citizens' right of reply provisions. In other words, if Barry O'Farrell, citizen ordinary, feels aggrieved by something someone has said in Parliament, it ought to be incumbent upon me to lodge my complaint and to make my request under the citizens' right of reply provisions as soon as practicable.
The time limits proposed by this motion clearly would give most people adequate time both to learn about what might have been said about them, and to take issue and seek redress from the Speaker. As I indicated last night in relation to the debate on the Fifty-Fourth Parliament's new standing orders, it is my strong view—a view shared by my colleagues—that these matters should be considered, unfiltered in the first instance, by the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Currently the process is that the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee might end up considering the issue if the Speaker, guided by the Clerk, deems either that there is a case to answer or that there are some issues that need to be redressed.
As I said last night, at the start of this Parliament the Legislative Assembly's Standing Ethics Committee was retitled the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. It strikes me that this is another example of how little the committee has to do with privileges and that the name change, in practice, means very little. We believe—as I hope to move as Leader of the House after the next election—that consideration of the possible inclusion in Hansard of a citizens' right of reply, which we strongly support, should be referred to the Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.
That committee, I am happy to place on the record today, given that this is the second last sitting day, has been well led by the honourable member for Maitland for all the time I have served on it. The committee has acted in a bipartisan spirit, without regard to the parties and personalities represented on it, and it has sought to put the Parliament's practices, intents, purposes and accountabilities, and the public's interest, to the fore. I am sure even the honourable member for Bligh would agree with me that it has not acted as a partisan committee, that it has acted very well. For that reason I believe the committee should be able to consider these sorts of issues. We are happy to support the amendment.
Motion agreed to. 4638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [12.31 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the address-in-reply in response to His Excellency the Hon. James Spigelman's address on 22 May 2006. The electorate of Baulkham Hills, as it has been recently reconstituted, comprises the suburbs of Baulkham Hills, Bella Vista, Winston Hills, Northmead, parts of Kellyville, Castle Hill, North Rocks, Old Toongabbie and North Parramatta. Like the rest of the north-western part of Sydney, it is a growing area with enormous development in housing in recent years, and a number of commercial and industrial developments. This development has caused some problems of a serious nature concerning issues such as traffic, roads and transport. In 1998, in its Action for Transport 2010, the Government released a proposal to build a north-west rail link, effectively joining Epping and the Castle Hill-Rouse Hill area, to be completed by 2010. However, the rail link has not materialised. Indeed, as the Hills News reported this week, the area is now referred to as being transport-starved. Until recently work on this project was not to begin until 2012—let alone be finished by 2010—and the rail link is now due to be completed in 2017.
I note that the Premier recently made an announcement that the rail link will be delivered in two stages. The Hills Centre section will be completed by 2015 and will provide three new stations, Franklin Road, Castle Hill and The Hills Centre. Stage two, from The Hills Centre to Rouse Hill, will be completed by 2017 and will provide three new stations. Each time the Government faces an election outcome there is an announcement about the north-west rail link. As I said, it happened in 1998—by coincidence, just prior to the 1999 election— and it also happened in 2003. The Government has done nothing of any substance: not one sleeper has been laid in respect of that rail link.
People are moving into the area almost in their thousands each year but the only public transport is by bus. That is not good enough. One can understand why people are cynical: the Government has made so many announcements about the north-west rail link but, as I said, not one sleeper has been laid. Also, at this stage I believe the final route has not been determined. In addition, the Government promised the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link. That project, of course, became somewhat derailed and it is now the Epping to Chatswood rail link. It means that many people who live in north-western Sydney will now not be able to access the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link because it starts at Epping. That project has gone on and on; it is over budget, and it is another litany of despair as far as this Government is concerned. Surely infrastructure must be delivered in a better way than the drip-feed system of the present Government.
I can assure the people of north-western Sydney that a Coalition government will expedite and build the north-west rail link. The details regarding the project will be announced at a later date. Nevertheless, we have a commitment to do it. The Government is very big on talk but very poor on action. Another issue of concern for people in the Baulkham Hills electorate is bus lanes. We all know that Windsor Road is a very congested road. Thankfully, after much agitation by local people, members of Parliament, councils and radio commentators, Windsor Road has been upgraded. But the Baulkham Hills section is still a nightmare. The situation has not been helped by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] imposing a bus-only lane on Windsor Road seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
On many occasions one could pitch a tent in the bus lane from 10 o'clock at night until 6 o'clock in the morning and not be disturbed because there would be no buses going up and down that road. The bus lanes are causing enormous problems at the major intersection of Old Northern Road, the Windsor Road and Seven Hills Road. Unfortunately the RTA only consults when it is forced to do so. It made an announcement that it would create a bus priority lane on Old Northern Road. That proposal included removing the car parking spaces from outside a little group of shops, blocking off part of Windsor Road, and then blocking off Railway Street at Baulkham Hills. That would have caused enormous traffic congestion for the residents who live within the parameters of Railway Street, Cook Street, Jenner Street and Hill Street. Blocking off Railway Street would mean traffic would have to do a run through the back streets. Residents are very concerned about this traffic congestion.
The removal of the car parking spaces outside the shops is an issue I have raised in Parliament before. After forcing the RTA to have consultation with the community, two options were put forward. Option 2 is for buses to be diverted to Olive Street to enable Railway Street to remain open and to allow for parking outside the shops. Option 6 is the preferred option of council, the local traffic committee and the community. The proposals 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4639
were placed on public exhibition until 21 November but council is prepared to receive submissions from residents until 30 November.
However, RTA surveyors are already marking out the bus lane on the Old Northern Road and marking Raemot Lane for widening to try to divert traffic—which is another indication that the RTA refuses to consult. It is treating my constituents similarly to the way it treated the people affected by the closure or widening of streets around the Cross City Tunnel. The blocking of those 80 streets and the reorganising of structures caused considerable distress to many residents. It is similar to the way the RTA will treat motorists who use the Lane Cove Tunnel. In many instances people will be forced to use the Lane Cove Tunnel because the RTA will turn Epping Road into a single lane.
Of course, the RTA is a government agency and is directly accountable to the State Government. I have written to the Minister expressing the residents' concerns but to date there has been no reply. Only if the Government is serious about addressing problems in Baulkham Hills will it embark upon a policy that will include a Baulkham Hills bus exchange, a multistorey car park, and the construction of an underpass or overpass between Old Northern Road and Seven Hills Road. This must happen. Work must commence on the north-west rail link; otherwise traffic conditions will become gridlocked. These are important issues for the people of Baulkham Hills.
I turn now to the Baulkham Hills Public School site. The school was established a long time ago and occupied the site until 1998. A development application is now before council to build 112 units in six buildings ranging between two and six storeys. Many residents believe that a development of this nature is totally inconsistent with the surrounding amenities and contrary to the development control plan, which states that the development must not have an adverse impact on the ambience of Russell Street. It should be remembered that a previous development application was knocked back by both the council and the Land and Environment Court. At the court hearing in 2001 council's experts argued that the site should have a maximum of 80 or 90 dwellings. The current application proposes 112 dwellings.
Notwithstanding Baulkham Hills Shire Council's arguments before the Land and Environment Court, the council and the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, have rezoned the land from special uses 5A to residential 2A (1), and the development control plan allows a maximum of 130 dwellings on the site with a maximum allowable height of six storeys for any building abutting the M2. At the hearing in 2001 council argued that the maximum number of dwellings should be 80 or 90. Yet four years later council, with the consent of the Minister for Planning, has rezoned the land to allow up to 130 dwellings on the site. That is a matter of concern. Another issue of grave concern to residents is traffic.
Baulkham Hills Public School was closed because of traffic problems and the school's proximity to the M2. In the Land and Environment Court both parties acknowledged that the proposed development could not realistically be contemplated, given that vehicular access was only via Russell Street unless traffic lights were installed at the intersection of Russell Street and Windsor Road. I understand that the developer, who is the present applicant, at the time offered to carry out the work, including the construction of a bus bay and right-hand turn bay. However, the RTA has refused to allow the installation of traffic lights at that intersection. Mrs Dorothy Muddle, who has worked hard on behalf of residents, attended a meeting this week and also wrote to council. She stated:
No such development should be approved without the implementation of a suitable traffic management plan …
The proposed development could not realistically be contemplated for the appeal site (where all vehicular access is via Russell Street) unless traffic lights are installed at the intersection of that road with Windsor Road [quoting from the Land and Environment Court].
This is a major and inescapable admission from all parties who were involved in the process in 2001 and which simply cannot be ignored NOW.
The proposed restrictions of right turn entry and exit will not be effective—partly because it is very difficult to enforce such restrictions—
She is absolutely right. Mrs Muddle continued:
In addition, these restrictions will cause severe problems to the residents of Dremeday and Woodlands Streets as residents of Russell Street will be forced to use those streets …
Unfortunately the residents of Russell Street do NOT have the luxury of any other alternative routes.
We are totally reliant on the intersection with Windsor Road with ALL vehicular traffic. 4640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Council sought a meeting with the RTA, which Mrs Muddle attended on 21 November. She informed me that RTA representatives were not interested in having traffic lights installed at that intersection, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal is for 112 new dwellings to be built. Residents of Russell Street are extremely concerned. I have written to the Minister for Roads but I have received no response. The developer is prepared to pay for the cost of the traffic lights and council is supportive, but the RTA will not agree to the installation of those lights. Council has stated that it will continue to campaign for their installation, otherwise the situation will be disastrous. The Lieutenant-Governor referred in his Speech to planning matters. I highlight Constitution Hill Retirement Village, which was formerly part of Old Toongabbie. Without any warning or consultation, the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales changed the name. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Residents have no problem with the name change but they object to their postcode being changed to 2145, because in some cases their premiums have increased by $300 or $400. The risk has not changed. Obviously the properties have not moved, but the residents must pay higher premiums because they have a new postcode. I raised this matter some time ago on behalf of the residents. We want the area renamed Northmead. Originally the suburb was called Northmead, and the name was then changed to Old Toongabbie. The local residents' community of interest is Northmead; they do their shopping there. They have little community of interest with postcode 2145, which is essentially the Wentworthville area. The elderly people who live in the retirement village are separated from Wentworthville by Windsor Road and the north-west bus transitway. They find it difficult to get to Wentworthville; it is easier to get to Northmead. Many people in private homes, not in the Constitution Hill Retirement Village, have similar feelings. Their insurance bills have gone up because of the new postcode. It was simple to change the name to Constitution Hill; it is much more difficult to change the name back to Northmead.
I made representations to the Minister, Mr Tony Kelly, on this matter. His response was that people should contact the Geographical Names Board in so far as it has responsibility for assigning place names in New South Wales. As I said, I have already made representations to the Geographical Names Board. When I told those who contacted my office that I had made such representations, they said, "We've already sent in letter after letter." The matter is being dealt with. I understand that the council has called for submissions on the matter and that the closing date for submissions is the end of December. This matter has been going on for some time but it should have been resolved. Although the closing date for submissions is the end of December, not much will happen in January. The matter may go before the Geographical Names Board some time in February or March, and perhaps a response will be received in March, April or May next year. In the meantime people continue to receive insurance policy renewals, which is a problem.
Another traffic issue in the Baulkham Hills electorate relates to Our Lady of Lourdes School, on Windsor Road. I raised this matter in Parliament recently. Our Lady of Lourdes has an extensive frontage to Windsor Road, with all pedestrian and vehicle movements to and from the school being via Windsor Road due to the layout of the area. All school bus services set down and pick up from either side of Windsor Road. It must be recognised that this section of Windsor Road has six lanes. To put it simply, there are no 40-kilometre-an-hour school zone warning signs or flashing lights outside the school, which is a serious problem. Even crossing the road is a problem because of the timing of the traffic lights. The green walk sign at the crossing lasts for only 5.5 seconds, and it took an adult staff member more than 20 seconds to cross the road. How can we expect infant children to cross the road in 5.5 seconds?
The Roads and Traffic Authority should immediately install 40-kilometre-an-hour warning signs and flashing traffic lights outside the school. The reasons why the RTA will not do that are that there is no front entrance to the school from Windsor Road, the introduction of a 40-kilometre-an-hour zone would cause havoc with the traffic, and children cross Windsor Road not only at peak times but also during the day. A number of other schools in the area have frontage to busy roads, including Windsor Road. On the Old Northern Road, which is equally busy, are St Gabriel's and St Bernadette's, and on Pennant Hills Road are Redeemer Baptist, Burnside Public, The Kings School and Cumberland High. I understand that there are warning lights at St Monica's, Baulkham Hills High School and Kellyville Public School, which are all on Windsor Road.
The arguments seem to be inconsistent. Our Lady of Lourdes School wants an overbridge across Windsor Road to accommodate students attending preschool, the church people and those who catch the M2 bus. The battle for this lovely school is serious. The teachers are committed, and the principal is extremely competent, conscientious and hardworking, and has the interests of the children at heart. I have spoken to the parish priest, Father Paul Slyney, the parents of students attending the school, and the parents and friends 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4641
president Damien Piggott, who are all concerned about the school's location on the very busy Windsor Road. A 40-kilometre-an-hour school zone must be introduced and flashing lights should be installed. Also, there is a strong case for the construction of an overbridge on Windsor Road in this area.
As I said earlier, work on the north-west transitway is proceeding at great pace. Recently I was contacted by Mr and Mrs Erdmanis, who have resided at 117 Goliath Avenue, Winston Hills, for some 35 years. They expressed concern about the changes to the environment opposite their home due to the proposed construction of the north-west transitway, and the shared pathway and cycleway that is being constructed along Old Windsor Road. Back in 1994 I raised in this House the concerns of residents of this part of Winston Hills who were experiencing unacceptable noise levels from traffic travelling along Old Windsor Road. At that time the RTA was not prepared to do anything about it.
Finally I asked the Minister to intervene. Following that, some mounds and trees were planted, which helped to reduce the noise level on Old Windsor Road and bring some sanity to the area. Since that time traffic on Old Windsor Road has increased dramatically with the link to the M7. During construction of the north-west transitway the mounds have been virtually razed to the ground and the trees have been knocked down. The RTA has agreed to construct a fence on that section of the road, but that is completely inadequate. It is a shame that trees that took 12 years to grow—they were meticulously cared for by the residents—have been removed virtually overnight, and, I understand, without any consultation. That simply happened during the construction.
I attended a meeting of residents. Also in attendance was an independent consultant who listened to the people's concerns. But there is no solution at this stage. Another meeting was held last week, at which I understand a proposal was to be put forward to the residents. I do not know whether the RTA's proposal as to how to overcome this problem has been received by the residents. In the meantime the dust, noise and other things will continue to have an adverse effect on the lifestyle of the people living in this lovely little cul-de-sac. I have written to the Minister on this issue but I have not received a reply. Surely the RTA must have some heart and some feelings for what the residents are suffering as a result of these plans. People may well support the overall concept but the reality is quite often that individuals like this little group of people living in Goliath Avenue suffer greatly the consequences of so-called progress.
The last matter concerns a group of people living opposite the Coca-Cola Amatil factory in Northmead, where it is proposed to build a nine-storey warehouse. I have been told that nine storeys is 32 metres high, and it is to be built right opposite residential homes. It is simply an unfair imposition on good, hard-working, honest Australian people, who will not only face noise—access to the factory will be 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there will be traffic chaos—in what is already a noisy area but also pollution. Those people are concerned about the effect it will have on the value of their homes. They are concerned that their lifestyles will be affected. They are hurt, more than anything else, because there has been no consultation with them. No-one has spoken to them to see whether there is some way to resolve the situation.
I have written to the Minister for Planning about this and asked him to look into the matter urgently. This concerns the lives of normal, hard-working people who were living comfortably in their area and suddenly, through no fault of their own, the whole environment is to change. I ask the Minister to look into this matter. The address in reply canvassed a number of issues concerning New South Wales. I have canvassed a number of issues that are important to the people of Baulkham Hills. I ask the Government to address these matters because they affect ordinary Australians.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Matt Brown.
[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marianne Saliba) left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
NSW OMBUDSMAN
Report
Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 31AA of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the report entitled "Report of Reviewable Deaths in 2005—Volume 1: Deaths of People with Disabilities in Care", dated November 2006.
Ordered to be printed. 4642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery Mr Armen Sarkissian, a member of the Armenian Parliament of Ngorno-Karabagh, a guest of the honourable member for Willoughby.
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.
Rural and Regional Police Resources
Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Forster-Tuncurry Policing
Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Forster-Tuncurry, received from Mr John Turner.
Wingecarribee Shire Respite Facility
Petition requesting that a respite unit be located in Wingecarribee shire, received from Ms Peta Seaton.
Rouse Hill High School Construction
Petition requesting funding for the immediate construction of the Rouse Hill High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Breast Screening Funding
Petitions requesting funding to ensure access to breast screening services for women aged 40 to 79 years and to reverse falling participation rates, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Campbell Hospital, Coraki
Petition opposing the closure of inpatient beds and the reduction in emergency department hours of Campbell Hospital, Coraki, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Orange Base Hospital Radiotherapy Services
Petition requesting that radiotherapy services be operational for the opening of the new Orange Base Hospital, received from Mr Russell Turner.
Lake Macquarie Open-cut Mining Operations
Petition opposing any extension of existing open-cut mining operations within the boundaries of the city of Lake Macquarie, received from Mr Jeff Hunter.
Community-based Preschools
Petition requesting increased funding to community-based preschools to maintain parity with preschools administered by the Department of Education and Training, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.
Sow Stall Ban
Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4643
Road Tunnel Air Filtration
Petition asking the Government to ensure that all Sydney road tunnels are fitted with air filters, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Alcohol Wet Centres
Petition requesting the establishment of wet centres in the inner city to provide a safe place for chronic drinkers, received from Ms Clover Moore.
CSR Quarry, Hornsby
Petition requesting a public inquiry into Hornsby Shire Council's acquisition of CSR Quarry in Hornsby, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Anvil Hill Coalmine Proposal
Petition opposing the proposed coalmine at Anvil Hill and requesting the adoption of a legislated renewable energy target for New South Wales, received from Mr John Price.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Reordering of General Business
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [2.25 p.m.]: I move:
That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Ministerial Code of Conduct] have precedence on Thursday 23 November 2006.
I seek precedence for this motion because before this House rises the Premier must enforce his ministerial code of conduct. The motion must be debated tomorrow because the Minister for Energy has clearly breached the ministerial code of conduct. I will lay out the facts for the House. Yesterday in this place the Minister for Energy confirmed that he has actively supported the Prairiewood Masterplan, which will open the way to rezone land owned by the Calabria Community Club.
Mr Morris Iemma: We have all read the Sydney Morning Herald.
Mr ANDREW STONER: What is the Premier covering up? The Calabria Community Club's financial statements clearly state that a "benefit of being a director" is that directors who have loans to the club have the first right of refusal to purchase the club land should the club decide to sell the land. I will put this simply: Directors who are owed money by the club have an option over the rezoned land. Who are the directors who will receive this benefit? They are Pat Sergi, the club president, who, through his development companies, has been a donor to both Joe Tripodi and Morris Iemma, and Andrea Carnuccio, who through her company bought and sold land in 2001 with Joe Tripodi. If this club decides to sell the land, these directors have an option over it—an option that increases in value along with the valuation of the land. An undergraduate finance student will tell you that those directors are better off for the rezoning and if the Minister's staffer, Rocco Leonello, chooses to make a loan, he will also benefit.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr ANDREW STONER: It is the sordid tale of the staffer, the donor, the business associate and the Minister. Let me turn to the Ministerial Code of Conduct, section 3.2 of which states:
A Minister shall not use his or her position for the private gain of the Minister or for the improper gain of any other person.
It also states:
So as to ensure that such does not appear to have occurred a Minister shall avoid a situation in which it might reasonably be thought that the Ministerial position is being so used, or that a possible conflict of interest has arisen.
Now, with the facts on the table, who in this House thinks that the Minister for Energy has a conflict of interest? Everybody! I seek precedence because all honourable members know that Minister for Energy has form. In 2000 he pocketed $11,000 from the sale of public land purchased by Westside Property Development. [Time expired.] 4644 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [2.30 p.m.]: More of the same! More of the same! Last week it was—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order. The Minister has the call.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is more of the same. The Leader of The Nationals is down in the gutter. The Leader of the Opposition is down in the gutter with W26 and the Leader of The Nationals is as bad. He is as bad as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister will be heard in silence.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Minister for Energy comprehensively answered that question in this place yesterday, and this is just more of the same from those on the other side of the House. I thought they would have learned from the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition, but they cannot learn.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands will cease calling out.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: They cannot learn and it is very clear—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease calling out.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is very clear that they have no facts. The Leader of The Nationals said "Let me be very simple about this." It is quite clear that when you are a simpleton you are simple. The Government is not going to bring this debate on because the issues were answered—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will cease calling out.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is more of the same from the Opposition. They spent a week separating out. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition disappeared up one end of the front bench and the Leader of The Nationals disappeared down the other end and the Leader of the Opposition was sitting on his own. But now the Leader of The Nationals is back with the Liberals, right down there in the gutter. The motion moved by the Leader of The Nationals is crazy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 37
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr McTaggart Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Maguire 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4645
Noes, 51
Ms Allan Mr Greene Mrs Perry Mr Amery Ms Hay Mr Price Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Mr Sartor Mr Black Mr Iemma Mr Scully Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Shearan Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Miss Burton Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Chaytor Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Mr Debus Mr Newell Ms Gadiel Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mrs Paluzzano Mr Corrigan Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Mr Martin
Pair
Mr Armstrong Mr Bartlett
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report
Mr Jeff Hunter, as Chairman, tabled report No. 15/53, entitled "Inquiry into Internal Complaint Handling in Private Health Practices", dated November 2006.
Ordered to be printed.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Report
Ms Noreen Hay, as Chairman, tabled report No. 18/53, entitled "Annual Review 2005-2006", dated November 2006.
Ordered to be printed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
KNIFE LAWS
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that today another person was stabbed to death on the streets of Sydney, will the Premier now support the Coalition's private member's bill that will more than double penalties for thugs carrying knives and give police more powers to search for concealed knives?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition's question touches on matters of policy rather than matters of character assassination. The House will notice the subtle change in tactics. We have a new sleaze 4646 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
merchant, the Leader of The Nationals, who is continuing the Coalition's campaign of sleaze and accusation whilst the Leader of the Opposition attempts to return to policy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will be allowed to answer the question.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition I can inform him that while he was entertaining child sex offenders last week, we put through legislation to toughen knife laws. I can inform him also that we already have the toughest knife laws in the country. In the past five years the number of knives used in committing robberies has decreased by 42 per cent, and last week we were getting on with the job. The Opposition might remember what it was doing last week. As part of getting on with the job, in response to requests from front-line police, we put through Parliament even tougher knife laws. Members of the Opposition may not have noticed—and I can understand why they may not have noticed—that while we were busy passing laws to give police greater protection the Opposition was busy putting its trust—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We stand condemned for not backing the Opposition. Absolutely! They are the last people we would want to back: an Opposition led by someone who does not have a shred of credibility on anything. Today he gets back to policy. The only problem is that policy was addressed by Government legislation last week.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We all know what the Leader of the Opposition was doing last week and at the beginning of this week. We will not support the stunts or the positions taken by the Leader of the Opposition, someone whose credibility is shot to pieces. The answer is no, we will not support his proposition. If he had any concern about knife laws, either for the public or to give police extra powers, why would he wait for the second last day of the Parliament—
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: Are you going to support the police or not?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier could not have given a more emphatic response than he has given today. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and cease playing games. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition should take the opportunity to start his rehabilitation as a political leader: he should apologise and withdraw his accusations. He will find that the people in both levels of the gallery will forgive him for what he did last week and at the beginning of this week. If he had any concern about knife laws as they impact on the general public or on the stop-and-search powers of police, why would he wait until the second last day of Parliament, knowing that the legislation has no chance of getting through?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We have the toughest knife laws in the country. We toughened them last week while the Leader of the Opposition was in the gutter entertaining a child sex offender and planning his attack on the Attorney. While he was planning his gutless, spineless attack on the Attorney, we were toughening up knife laws in response to concerns from police. I cannot help the Leader of the Opposition on knife laws— we have already done that—but I can assist him in another area of policy. I can release for him a policy, one of his own, and it comes from the Hon. Greg Pearce, the member in the upper House.
Mr Gerard Martin: Another non-entity.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Perhaps he is sitting next to David Clarke and Charlie Lynn. Wouldn't that be exciting for him? Mr Pearce released a policy and, lo and behold, he released it to the Attorney. I know the Attorney was quite surprised to get a policy document from Mr Pearce. Perhaps Mr Pearce was feeling sorry for the Attorney after the Leader of the Opposition traduced his reputation. It was a tax policy. As shadow spokesperson, Mr Pearce stated in the letter he sent to the Attorney that he would abolish the vendor duty— something that happened back in August. In point 2 of this pointed plan to reduce taxation, he talks about 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4647
cutting workers compensation premiums. For the benefit of Mr Pearce there have been three reductions in 12 months.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: This has nothing to do with the question. The Premier has lost the plot. He should come back to the question. It is the second last sitting day.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lachlan will resume his seat. The Chair has extended some latitude in relation to policy matters. The Premier will respond to the question.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Point 2 was about cutting workers compensation premiums. There have been three cuts in 12 months. In point 3 the Opposition proposed to implement the recommendations in the Ombudsman's October 2005 report of his investigation of the New South Wales land valuation system. Again that is something we are already doing. Point 4 includes reforming the valuation objections procedure, something that we announced on budget day. I think members opposite were here for budget day.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: The Premier is not speaking in response to the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is dealing with policy matters. I do not know whether he will get to a policy in relation to knives.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Point 5 of Mr Pearce's plan refers to the Opposition implementing measures to address land tax volatility. That is something we have already done. It is in the budget. The Opposition had the opportunity to ask questions about that during budget estimates, but they did not turn up for them. From this year land tax liabilities will be calculated on the basis of average land values over the past three years.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: The Premier was asked about knives. He may well be answering about policy but could he please cut to the chase?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. Knives, land tax policy—something we have been getting on with the job of addressing. The final point, and the clanger of all clangers in this letter, is that Mr Pearce claims that the Government has used land tax as a cash cow. However, tucked away in the final dot point of the letter is that their changes would be revenue neutral.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to return to the leave of the question.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What a bunch of hypocrites! Whether it is land tax or knife laws, the Government has been getting on with the job of addressing those issues for the benefit of the taxpayers of New South Wales and the police, while the Leader of the Opposition has been travelling down the smear path with his friend Senator Bill Heffernan, entertaining a child sex offender.
BUSHFIRES AND RURAL FIRE SERVICE VOLUNTEERS
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question without notice is to the Premier. What is the latest information on efforts to protect lives and property from the current bushfires in New South Wales?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: With such a harsh and severe drought, we have been expecting a harsh and severe fire season. Unfortunately, it has arrived—and it arrived in force. Today I attended Rural Fire Service headquarters at Homebush for a briefing on the conditions that have brought the fire season to such an early and dramatic beginning. There are currently 66 fires raging across the State, including major blazes in the Blue Mountains, Forbes, Oberon, the Hunter Valley and Tamworth. Staff at the briefing advised that hot, dry and windy conditions are continuing to make the firefighters' job to contain and control these fires so much more difficult. Compounding that problem is the forecast of possible scattered electrical activity over the next 24 to 48 hours, so more fires can be expected to result from lightning strikes. In recent hours the fires in the lower Blue Mountains have reached a position very close to Linden and Woodford, which could come under serious threat. According to the Rural Fire Service update, which I read just before question time:
The fire has taken a major run and there is significant spotting activity occurring to the south-east of the main fire fronts.
There are reports of fire activity as far east as the townships of Linden and Woodford.
Wind speeds of up to 100 kilometres an hour plus are fanning the outbreak. 4648 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
More than 2,300 firefighters are in the field today, supported by 60 aircraft, including three sky cranes. The Rural Fire Service is the finest fire brigade service on earth and today's fires have our deepest gratitude. Once again, they put their safety on the line to save lives and protect property. The Government is backing the fire service with the biggest injection of resources in the State's history. That is something we are proud of. We are proud of them and we will continue to support them with those resources. The fires pose a very real danger to property, and whilst there is no cause for panic at the moment, I urge all residents in those nearby areas to heed the warnings, take precautions and, above all, take the advice of the professionals, who are placing their own lives at risk to protect property and lives. Credit for a lot of this work goes to the men and women of the Rural Fire Service, their training, professionalism, courage, and dedication.
Mr Ian Armstrong: You have to mention Phil Koperberg.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, a lot of the credit for turning around the old, antiquated Bush Fire Services Act belongs to Mr Koperberg and the Attorney, the finest Minister for Emergency Services the State has ever had.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Minister?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I was referring to the Attorney General.
Mr Peter Debnam: What have you got against Tony Kelly?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Premier will be allowed to respond in silence.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The outstanding effort of the Attorney General has been continued by Mr Kelly. For example, in 1997 the legislation that I just referred to was completely reformed, transforming the old Bush Fire Brigades into the modern Rural Fire Service that we know today. As a result we now have a cohesive command and control system, creating a single, unified volunteer firefighting service from the Queensland border to the Murray River, from the coast to the Far West. We have increased resources massively. In its last seven years in office the Coalition spent a paltry $197 million on the volunteers. In 12 years that has gone to $1.2 billion. In this financial year alone, record funding of $168 million—a 20 per cent increase—has been used to purchase almost 3,000 fire tankers and to build or renovate some 535 stations and control centres. Also, tens of millions of dollars have been spent on upgrading the communications system, particularly in remote areas. The Rural Fire Service does this State and this country proud. We are proud of our rural firefighters and the work they do. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude for their courage and determination.
MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT
MINISTER FOR ENERGY CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGATION
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the Minister for Energy has benefited from the rezoning of land owned by Calabria Community Club, because his campaign donors and business associates stand to receive a financial benefit, will the Premier enforce section 3.2 of his ministerial code of conduct to prevent this conflict of interest?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Nationals has temporarily taken over the mantle as the sleaze merchant. While the Leader of the Opposition goes looking for his credibility, which no-one can find, the sleaze merchant from The Nationals has picked up the mantle today and is carrying on the job. Yet another Opposition Member has walked into the Chamber and levelled another accusation against a Minister. The Leader of The Nationals has the same problem as the Leader of the Opposition, that is, someone who lacks credibility and integrity has levelled an accusation. Members opposite assume that levelling an accusation equals an allegation and equals guilt.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease injecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is for the Leader of The Nationals to get up and justify a claim. All he has done is make a claim. He has levelled an accusation, and an accusation does not equal guilt. The Leader of The Nationals should be the last person to get up in the Chamber and lecture anyone about conduct or the code of conduct. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4649
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. You just voted—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. He cannot take a point of order and restate his question merely because he does not like the Premier's answer. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: All the Leader of The Nationals has proved with that question, and with the idiotic motion he tried to move earlier, is that he reads the Sydney Morning Herald. That is all. Perhaps he cuts out articles and keeps a filing system. That is all it is: He reads the Sydney Morning Herald. He gets up and lectures the Government about conduct, when sitting on the Opposition frontbench is the honourable member for Coffs Harbour who, to his disgrace, is the first member of Parliament in Australian parliamentary history to commit an assault on the floor of the Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I feel sorry for members opposite who, unfortunately, must sit in hateful unity with the Leader of the Opposition, who committed a detestable slander of the Attorney General last week and earlier this week. He then got up and talked about integrity and behaviour. Today the Leader of The Nationals brought in the latest instalment of smear and grubby tactics.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order for the second time.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 138. There is no smear. We want to debate—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. I call the Leader of The Nationals to order. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals, like the Leader of the Opposition—the man he sits next to—has no credibility. They have no character, no credibility and no integrity.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: They do not understand the basic difference between an accusation and a claim, an allegation or evidence. Get up and justify the smear and the innuendo!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The simple fact is that the Leader of The Nationals cannot justify this, other than to tell us that he follows the newspapers.
CANCER PLAN
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to reduce the impact of cancer?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the honourable member for Newcastle for his strong interest in cancer control in New South Wales. Today I released the second statewide cancer plan in Australia's history to direct our cancer efforts for the next four years to 2010. It cements the Government's achievements under the first cancer plan in Australia's history, which we released in 2004. That delivered 245 new cancer professionals into our health system and $48 million for cancer research, and involved reducing the number of smokers by 100,000. Now we are moving forward, building on those achievements and planning for the next four years, with the advice of about 900 health professionals who have been involved in preparing the new cancer plan.
We have set targets that are ambitious but achievable, unlike the aspirations of the honourable member for North Shore. Our new direction for cancer control in New South Wales will build healthier communities, which is a key pillar of the State plan. We will invest more than $21 million over four years to expand the clinical testing of new cancer drugs—drugs that can prolong or even save lives. By 2010 the Iemma Government has a target of 10 per cent of all new cancer patients participating in clinical trials. If these 4650 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
treatments work we want them on the market, giving patients new hope and a fresh chance for a healthy life— achieving the goals outlined in the State plan.
We will also run aggressive campaigns raising awareness of the links between lifestyle and cancer risk. For example, experts believe that excessive alcohol consumption can increase breast cancer risk by about 20 per cent. On the other hand, a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, combined with physical activity, can reduce the risk of bowel cancer by about 20 per cent. We are serious about encouraging people to live life to the full, and we will invest more than $5 million in these awareness campaigns under the cancer plan to 2010. We will establish multidisciplinary teams and panels of cancer experts evaluating individual cases and determining the best possible treatment.
The Iemma Government's vision is for every person with cancer to be assessed by these teams, giving patients access to the latest advice from leading cancer experts. Cancer screening will also feature heavily over the next four years. Early detection saves lives. That is why the Iemma Government will invest at least $84 million in the BreastScreen program to 2010, and about $30 million in cervical screening and the pap test register. We know we are making progress. Over the past 10 years survival rates have gone up by 16 per cent in men and 10 per cent in women. For the average New South Wales family, that is monumental when one considers that a person diagnosed with cancer in 1973 had a 66 per cent chance of dying. For every 100 people diagnosed with cancer in 1973, 66 died. That was terrible odds. Now cancer rates are up but survival rates are also up.
Stomach and cervical cancers are in decline. The new focus is on melanoma and prostate cancer. Friends of our children will also be treated for bowel cancer and breast cancer. However, today, thanks to our hard work, investment, outstanding health professionals and clear plan for cancer care, more than 63 per cent of cancer patients will survive and live healthy lives. Today, 63 per cent will survive, compared with 66 per cent who failed to survive back in 1973. In other words, we will deliver on our State Plan goal of healthier communities and better health care—a promising plan for the future, a plan that is poles apart from the petty politics of members opposite. By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition wants to sack 29,000 public servants who support our nurses and our front-line workers.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will come to order. The Minister will be heard in silence.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: We have a blueprint to reduce the impact of cancer over the next four years, building on the achievements of the first cancer plan, trialling new cancer drugs, training cancer specialists and funding new cancer equipment in our hospitals. Members opposite have no plan and no policies to offer the people of New South Wales. They are ashamed of their leader, who has failed the test of integrity and character, and he will not back down on his plan to slash 29,000 jobs, which would cut these front-line services. He will not apologise for supporting a convicted paedophile over the mother of a child-abuse victim. Members opposite are ashamed of him and they do not know where they can hide. They can run but they cannot hide. The Leader of the Opposition is clearly not fit to govern New South Wales. By contrast, we are rolling out positive plans for the people of this State.
GRAZING ON PUBLIC LAND
Mr RUSSELL TURNER: My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment. Given that we are now in the worst drought in more than 100 years, is the Government considering allowing stock to graze on public land while the drought is in progress as a way of reducing the impact of the drought on farmers?
Mr BOB DEBUS: I believe that is essentially a question for the Minister for Natural Resources. However, if the honourable member is asking whether the Government is considering allowing grazing in national parks, I should say the answer is no, on the basis that that has never occurred in the past and there is not at the present time a clear justification for doing so. Honourable members may be assured that the Minister for Natural Resources, the Minister for Agriculture and I will always remain in consultation about these matters.
HUNTER REGION RAIL SERVICES
Mr JOHN PRICE: My question without notice is addressed to the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on improvements to passenger rail services in the Hunter region, and related matters? 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4651
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby will come to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Our efforts to improve the rail system continue.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Today in Newcastle the Premier unveiled the latest in these improvements, the first of the 14 new Hunter rail cars accepted into our fleet. The Iemma Government has invested $102 million in the latest quality, airconditioned rail carriages to provide services on the Hunter line between Newcastle, Maitland and the Hunter Valley.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order for the second time.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The first of these magnificent new carriages will enter passenger service tomorrow, and the remainder of the fleet will be progressively introduced as final testing and crew training is undertaken. The carriages set a new direction in passenger comfort and safety, with features that include airconditioning, on-board closed circuit television, on-board passenger information screens, floor-level storage stacks and four wheelchair spaces for every two-carriage set. Hunter rail passengers will now enjoy a cooler, more comfortable journey with added security and accessibility. The Hunter cars are complemented by our investment in 122 outer suburban cars worth $439 million. They will start to roll out before the end of the year. Earlier this month we awarded a $3.6 billion contract to Reliance Rail for the delivery of 626 new airconditioned carriages, which we will roll out across our CityRail network. It is the largest single order ever to occur in Australia. We have done a lot, and there is more to be done; however, some good work is happening in rail services in New South Wales.
Yesterday I discussed how the Leader of the Opposition and his puppet master, Mr Clarke, had removed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from the high-profile shadow Transport portfolio and moved him into Treasury, because he had to have someone to blame for $25 billion. Further research proves that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not the man to fix the problem. After all, he was the State Director of the Liberal Party in the 1990s when it had that multimillion dollar debt, which meant it had to sell its headquarters. Who was in charge? It was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: It pains me, but my point of order is accuracy. It was Della who had the $10 million Commonwealth Bank loan over your building.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can make a personal explanation later.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Few can forget his visit to Melbourne a couple of years ago to discuss the privatisation of the rail system—perhaps a precursor of things to come. Today in the newspapers, he is talking up the sale of the electricity industry. These are the policies that interest that side of Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will listen to the Deputy Premier in silence.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: If members take that stroll down memory lane, they soon come to the airport rail link—$800 million of taxpayers' money down the drain because of whom? Barry O'Farrell—it was one of the last acts when he was chief of staff to the last Coalition Minister for Transport in New South Wales.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease calling out.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: But, some people think he is up to the job.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: At least one person thinks he is up to the job—Barry says he is perfect for the job. The North Shore Times reported yesterday:
Despite Mr O'Farrell's lack of professional economic experience, the parliamentarian was confident his experience in the transport, education and health portfolios have left him well-equipped for the job.
Experience in the portfolios? He has never been a Minister. His only experience is in Opposition shadow portfolios. That is the only experience this clown has had. With these credentials, the $25 billion Peter meter 4652 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
might be eclipsed by the new and improved O'Farrell pork barrel. While we are speaking about increased figures, my attention was drawn to the Sydney Morning Herald poll results—the Sydney Morning Herald online site.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will cease injecting.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: To the question, "Rate Debnam's strategy in attacking Debus", the results are good, 8 per cent; average, 6 per cent—
Mr Donald Page: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 138. The question was clearly about Hunter rail. The Minister has strayed well away from Hunter rail. I want to know what the Minister is going to do with the DEB sets?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ballina will resume his seat. The Minister is answering a question on transport matters, as he is entitled to do.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: To the question, "Rate Debnam's strategy in attacking Debus", the Sydney Morning Herald online—
Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: I ask you a question: How does reading from the Sydney Morning Herald relate to a transport matter?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not know, unless he is coming to a matter related to transport.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Thousands of people who use trains read the Sydney Morning Herald.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier needs to make his answer slightly more relevant.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: It is a great newspaper.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The results of the poll to rate Debnam's strategy to attack Debus are: good, 8 per cent; average, 6 per cent; stupid, 27 per cent; so stupid he should quit, 58 per cent.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: If you were having difficulty finding relevance earlier, you would have no difficulty now. I ask that you direct the Deputy Premier to come back to the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! As always the honourable member for Cronulla has proven to be quite perceptive. I will talk to the Deputy Premier about it.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: I understand that the Sydney Morning Herald has never recorded so many votes from the one email address, which was [email protected]..
Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable member for Cronulla wish to ask a question?
Mr Malcolm Kerr: No, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Then I call the honourable member for Northern Tablelands.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: I am taking a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Malcolm Kerr: The Deputy Premier in referring to the Sydney Morning Herald is flouting your direction. I would be interested to see the article, if he wished to table it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier has completed his answer. If the honourable member for Cronulla wants the Deputy Premier to quote the source of the article, I will ask him to do so.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: That won't be necessary. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4653
ARMIDALE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTRE CASEWORKERS
Mr RICHARD TORBAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. When can Northern Tablelands expect an increase in the number of Department of Community Services front-line caseworkers?
Ms REBA MEAGHER: I acknowledge the interest of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands in advancing the welfare of children and families in the Armidale region. I would like to reassure the honourable member that plans to dramatically increase the number of front-line Department of Community Services [DOCS] caseworkers in the Armidale area are well under way. We are currently advertising in the media for people to join the Armidale community service centre [CSC]. The Iemma Government's $1.2 billion commitment to rebuild the Department of Community Services will see the number of front-line caseworker positions at the Armidale community service centre increase from 8 in 2003 to 18 by the end of the reform program—more than double the current number of front-line case workers at the centre.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The Government is providing the best possible facilities for staff and the families who use those services. By 2008 Armidale will have a child protection team, an out-of-home care team and an early intervention team. The centre will offer a full spectrum of services to children, young people and families in the area. This increased level of service will not be limited to people in Armidale. Whether it is families in Guyra, Uralla or Walcha, the Iemma Government will work with them every step of the way. Central to the service upgrade will be the establishment of the early intervention program, which is part of the new direction of the Iemma Government to support vulnerable families.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Upper Hunter will come to order.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. What has Torbay got that Barr hasn't? Down at Manly there are no Department of Community Services officers at all. They took them away.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I call him to order.
Mr Brad Hazzard: What has Torbay got that Barr hasn't got?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order. The Minister for Community Services has the call and will complete her reply.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The interjection by the honourable member for Wakehurst is extraordinary. He served as a shadow Minister in this portfolio and he failed. He failed to shift the Coalition policy to cut the DOCS budget by $700 million and reduce the work force by 675 front-line caseworkers. He failed.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much calling out in the Chamber. The Minister for Community Services will be heard in silence.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: It is very interesting to see that the Coalition is shuffling the deck chairs. We now have shadow Minister for Community Services number five since January last year, when I assumed responsibility for Community Services.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Southern Highlands to order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: All of the four previous shadow Ministers failed to ensure that the Coalition would stand up to Canberra and offer a better deal to families in New South Wales. They did not stand up for vulnerable children or families. Each one of them failed to change Coalition policy. I sincerely congratulate the honourable member for Hornsby on her elevation to the shadow front bench. But, let me say, the challenge before her is an obvious one: to ensure that the Coalition renounces its policy to cut $700 million from the DOCS budget.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby will come to order. 4654 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Ms REBA MEAGHER: The Coalition should match the Iemma Government.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order for the second time.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: We are building the strongest network of care possible for vulnerable families across New South Wales. The children and families of New South Wales deserve it. The Coalition policy will not impact just on metropolitan areas. It will decimate services in the bush.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Upper Hunter to order.
Ms REBA MEAGHER: Jobs will be lost in country areas and community service centres in those areas will be closed. That will mean the families of Guyra, Walcha, Uralla and Armidale will go without these valuable services. The Iemma Government is committed to investing in families and providing a network of support for vulnerable children. That is in contrast to the heartless policy of the Coalition. The Coalition will not renounce its proposed cuts to this government agency. Over the course of this week we have seen that the Leader of the Opposition does not have any character. It is up to the honourable member for Hornsby to demonstrate he has a heart.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENROLMENTS
Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. What steps has the Government taken to promote public education and to boost enrolments at New South Wales public schools?
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I understand the interest of the honourable member for Parramatta in this matter because a school in her electorate, Rydalmere East Public School, is one of the schools that has seen a 50 per cent increase in kindergarten enrolments in 2006. That has been due to the hard work of the school, the school community and the regional promotions officer.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will cease calling out. The Minister for Education and Training will be heard in silence.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Public schools in New South Wales are the centrepiece of the education system. For many young people they are their pathway to future success in the world of work or further study. Public education is chosen by parents in New South Wales for a whole range of reasons, but particularly for the breadth of the curriculum, the quality of the teaching and the inclusive values that our public schools champion every single day. Schooling is a highly competitive market and the Government supports the right of parents to choose a school for their child. Parents will naturally and reasonably examine schooling options in order to do what is best for their children. At the same time, a strong and vibrant public education system that is the first choice of the majority of families is critical to a healthy and functioning democracy. It is unfortunate that this fact seems to have been lost on the Federal Government. We regularly see the Federal Government trying to bring down public education and undermine the great achievements of our public schools.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Untrue.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Read the Australian today.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will stop calling out.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training is at it again. She is quoted in the Australian today as saying, "Parents are increasingly voting with their feet by investing in private education". When the Federal Minister makes those sorts of comments one might think that the New South Wales Opposition would want to stand up for public schools in New South Wales, that it would want to stand up for our excellent teachers, our wonderful results, and our hardworking and bright students. But the Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying, "More parents are sending their children to private schools because they are seeking discipline and standards. It's as simple as that." That is offensive to every public school in New South Wales and to every parent who sends a child to a public school. Our public schools maintain the highest standards, and our public schools have strong disciplinary policies. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4655
Mr Wayne Merton: Point of order: We have one sitting day left in this Parliament and 33 days before Christmas. Every day I have asked about the Crestwood Public School toilets. Please, Minister, give the school a Christmas present and fix the toilets!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills will resume his seat. The Minister has the call.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member for Baulkham Hills is nothing if not persistent. Let us get back to the Leader of the Opposition, who should stand up for our public schools. After all, 67 per cent of all school students in New South Wales attend public schools. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not pursue the Federal Government and stand up for schools in New South Wales? Why does he not defend the standards of our public schools?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The Minister should worry about her own performance. The Auditor-General's report notes that the proportion of all students enrolled in Government schools—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Wakehurst wants to make a presentation to the House, there is an appropriate way for him to do so. I order him to resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. The Minister has the call.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat!
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Wakehurst fail to acknowledge that Federal Government policies have undermined public education in New South Wales. They are not honest about it. Changes to Commonwealth Government policy, including the abolition of the new schools policy and changes to funding, have placed public schools in an increasingly competitive environment. By 2008 for every $1 provided for a public school student the Commonwealth will provide $5 for each non-government school student. All we ask for is parity. All we ask is that the Commonwealth provide funding for public schools at the same rate of increase it has provided it for non-government schools.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the second time.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: If the Commonwealth did that, an additional $860 million would be available to government schools across Australia by 2008. Not only has growth for public schools not kept pace with growth for non-government schools, but at the same time the Commonwealth refuses to apply the same funding principles to both government and non-government primary schools. As a result, New South Wales public primary schools receive $32 million less each year from the Commonwealth than they should. Nationally the shortfall is $100 million. I will tell those opposite what the Government has done about it, but they should ask what the Leader of the Opposition has done about it. Why does he not stand up for New South Wales public schools? We have provided public schools with the skills and resources to promote themselves to their local communities, and to assist parents to make an informed choice. We have established a schools promotion unit, we have employed 10 regional promotions officers to support school communities and we have provided schools with communication training. What we have done is working; it is getting results.
An example of a Government initiative is Lynwood Park Primary School in Sydney's west, which was experiencing declining enrolments. In May 2005 the school had 180 students. The staff and parents worked with 4656 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
the schools promotion officer to try to reverse this decline. They implemented a transition program for kindergarten students, established a before and after school care program, and developed a new school web site. I am pleased to advise that all this hard work has made a difference. It is expected that 260 students will be enrolled at the school next year, including 50 children in kindergarten. But it is not just the Sydney metropolitan area where our schools promotion policy is working. It is also working in regional areas. For example, Scone High School had a 40 per cent increase in year 7 enrolments this year. Bonshaw Public School, a tiny little school up near the Queensland border, has tripled its enrolments by raising its profile.
We know that school promotion officers would disappear under the policy of the Leader of the Opposition to slash 29,000 jobs from the public service, we know that the class size reduction program would disappear, we know that student welfare services would disappear and we know that Aboriginal education services would disappear. The Opposition has no plans to improve education services in New South Wales and no plan to improve education services in rural areas. It is only the Iemma Government that is committed to ensuring that public education continues to provide quality services for students in New South Wales. Our principals, our teachers and our students do an excellent job.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Minister, having in mind what you just said, can you explain why you are demolishing Beacon Hill High School?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst may have thought a long time about how to interject, but apparently he has missed the cue. He will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands has the call.
ELECTRICITY BLACKOUTS
Ms PETA SEATON: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. How can he trust Minister Tripodi's claims that there will be no blackouts, when official figures show hydro dams at lower levels than last year, Queensland generators cutting back essential power to New South Wales, the National Electricity Market Management Company [NEMMCO] warning that plant failure and extreme weather will cause shortfalls, and with emerging concerns that underinvestment and equipment failure caused the Vales Point explosion?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the Premier answers the question, I remind the honourable member for Southern Highlands that this is question time; it is not time for members to make speeches. However, I will allow the question.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, it is her last question, her last speech, and I thank her for it. I also wish her all the best as she departs this place, like so many other Opposition frontbenchers. The Leader of the Opposition has been losing them at the rate of one a week. We wish the honourable member for Southern Highlands well in her career after politics. She was shunted aside for the Smith-Goward contest. Coming on top of Mrs Forsythe, Mr Ryan, the honourable member for Davidson, the honourable member for Hawkesbury—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition has been losing them at the rate of one a week.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will cease calling out. His position may have changed, but I can still recognise his voice. I place the honourable member for Gosford on two calls to order. The Premier has the call. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4657
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Do honourable members know what explains the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in the past week? This is what drives his behaviour and this is what explains everything. Day in and day out his party ignores his leadership. In particular, Mr Clarke tells him who will be in his team, Mr Clarke tells him what he will do, Mr Clarke tells him what he will say, and Mr Clarke tells him what he will do if the people ever had the misfortune to have him sitting on this side of the House.
Ms Peta Seaton: Point of order: My question was about whether or not the Premier should trust Minister Tripodi when he says there will be no blackouts. He needs to answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the question. If members opposite cease interjecting, the Premier may be able to answer it.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The honourable member can start by getting a transcript of the 2UE interview with Mr Price from the National Electricity Market Management Company [NEMMCO] two weeks ago. What did he say? He said that New South Wales was the best placed of all the States to meet electricity demand in peak times and in base loads. That is what he said.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. A number of members are on a number of calls to order. I now deem those members to be on three calls. Question time will be completed in the proper way. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: First, according to NEMMCO, New South Wales is the best placed of all the States to meet electricity demand and to offer reliability. It has a 99-plus per cent reliability rating. That is what Mr Price said a couple of weeks ago in the report. That relates to peaking capacity as well as base load, and until at least 2011-12 for peaking capacity. And if that is not sufficient for the honourable member for Southern Highlands, I point out that right this moment, not far from her electorate at Tallawarra in the Illawarra, a 400-megawatt, gas-fired power station is under construction. In fact, construction started last week. It will be completed and pumping electricity into the grid by 2008-09.
Ms Peta Seaton: Point of order: The Premier is misleading the House because NEMMCO also warned—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Southern Highlands knows that is not a point of order. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: They just hate it. Mr Price answered that question a couple of weeks ago. Honourable members opposite should read the transcript where he was asked that very question, and he hit it right on the head. If that is not sufficient for the honourable member, then I point out that the 400-megawatt gas-fired power station under construction near her electorate will do two things. First, it will reduce greenhouse gases by 70 per cent and, second, it will supply electricity to 200,000 homes in this State. Not only that, it will do so more efficiently, more cheaply and more flexibly.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Hills will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: More flexible than old gas technology? Absolutely. It is much more flexible. In addition, nearly 1,000 apprentices have been recruited by rural energy businesses to work on a $9 billion project to improve the electricity network and its reliability. We want to drive improvement even further. We have achieved 99 per cent reliability, but we want to push that figure further up. That work has already commenced. In excess of $2 billion has been invested this year in improving the safety, efficiency and reliability of the electricity network. I will get to dividends as well. I will save the honourable member from having to ask a supplementary question. The honourable member has had a little to say about dividends today.
Mr Andrew Stoner: You are plundering them.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals might like to turn to George and ask him what he thinks about dividends coming from electricity businesses.
Mr David Campbell: Who is George?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: George Souris. I refer honourable members to the 1991-92 budget, which indicates that contributions from government electricity enterprises went up 71 per cent. When questioned about 4658 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
the remarkable increase in the dividend payments on 9 March 1993, the former Minister for Finance, George Souris, said:
Everyone must realise that the Government's ability to employ people in health, education and law enforcement requires dividends from government trading enterprises.
He went on to say:
The Government makes no apology for its dividend policy…
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Planning will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It is an oldie but a goodie. George concluded that startling proposition by saying:
The money has to come from somewhere.
Mr Andrew Stoner: How much are you plundering?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We are taking less than the Coalition Government took. When it comes to comparisons, members opposite might like to note that over the next four years dividend payment ratios for the New South Wales electricity sector will average 77 per cent post-tax profit. That is lower than the average dividend payment ratios over the past three years for utilities such as Telstra at 87 per cent and AGL at 82 per cent. If the honourable member for Southern Highlands was planning to ask a question about dividends, that is the answer. When it comes to electricity infrastructure investment, that is the answer. When it comes to NEMMCO, that is the answer. I will conclude by asking: How can we trust a man who takes the word of a child sex offender to run the New South Wales electricity system?
Ms PETA SEATON: I ask a supplementary question. Has the Government's dividend stripping contributed to insulation and maintenance shortfalls at Vales Point that are causing concern to employees of Delta Electricity?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question. It is clearly a separate question altogether and does not arise from the Premier's answer.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: The honourable member for Southern Highlands' original question finished with a reference to concerns about failing equipment and underinvestment being a factor in the Vales Point explosions. Mr Speaker, it is unfair and incorrect of you to say that the supplementary question she has just asked did not arise out of her original question.
Mr David Campbell: To the point of order: A supplementary question must relate to information that comes from the answer, not from the original question. The point of order taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes it very clear that it related to information from the original question. Therefore, the question cannot be a supplementary question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear one further member on the point of order.
Mr Malcolm Kerr: To the point of order: As the Minister said, the question did arise from the answer given. The Premier said he would speak about the dividends and he was as good as his word.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister said precisely the opposite. I rule that there is no supplementary question.
SMALL BUSINESS REGULATION REVIEW
Mr STEVE WHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. What is the latest information on the Iemma Government's efforts to slash red tape for small business and related matters?
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the honourable member for Monaro for his ongoing advocacy for small business owners in his region. I appreciate the fact that each time I go to his electorate he finds some small 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4659
business operators for me to talk to and, most importantly, to listen to. In New South Wales there are 440,000 small businesses employing one million people, which clearly makes New South Wales Australia's largest small business State. Slashing red tape for small business owners and operators is essential to Premier Iemma's new direction for the New South Wales economy. That is why he established the small business regulation review in January this year as part of a three-pronged attack on red tape.
Mr Andrew Fraser: What has this Minister done?
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I warn the honourable member for Coffs Harbour not to interject. The Small Business Regulation Review Task Force includes representatives of the State's peak business organisations, Australian Business Limited State Chamber and the Australian Industry Group. During the first review into the motor vehicle retailing and services sector, the task force listened to small business operators and their industry associations. Its recommendations were fully accepted by the Iemma Government and will mean direct savings of more than $1.5 million each year for companies involved in that sector.
In the Southern Courier in February this year, the chief executive officer of the New South Wales Motor Traders' Association, James McCall, hailed the red tape review as "a brilliant initiative". At the same time the chief executive officer of the Service Station Association, Ron Bowden, said that he was confident "the Red Tape Taskforce set up by the NSW Government will bring all stakeholders to work together and rein in the burden of compliance". Thanks to our partnership with this sector, the rules and regulations for firms operating in the motor vehicle services sector will be much simpler. However, the hard work does not end there.
Last month I received the task force's final report into the accommodation and food services sector. Its recommendations are under consideration. In September I launched the next phase of our red tape offensive to assist the 22,000 firms involved in national manufacturing. The fourth sector-by-sector review into professional and business services is also under way. I expect that both reviews will be completed and presented to the Government by the end of this year. The contrast between the Premier and the current leader of the rabble opposite could not be greater. The Premier, Morris Iemma, understands that small businesses are hurting because of the Howard Government's failure to contain interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition is a man without any plans.
[Interruption]
The honourable member for North Shore should hear what members opposite say behind her back. The Leader of the Opposition is the man without any plans other than to bring this place into disrepute with this grubby smears and to let the extreme right wing knock off his dwindling band of sidekicks one by one. Time and time again, this arrogant out-of-touch man fails our hardworking small business owners and operators. The Leader of the Opposition is not fit to lead this State. He must come clean and substantiate his claims of having business expertise in those 173 paid-for words that were published in the Daily Telegraph last week. He took out an advertisement last week in which he claimed he would use his business experience to guide him—if this great State were ever to suffer the misfortune of having him as its leader. If the Leader of the Opposition expects the people of New South Wales to put their money, or their votes, where his mouth is, he had better explain why businesses have always failed when he has been at the helm. This is a man who drove a once-thriving prawn farming business into liquidation. While he was employed at Dalgety Farmers, the company recorded its first losses in 16 years.
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: The Minister is lying his head off again.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Although I was willing to entertain a point of order, once again the Leader of the Opposition has abused the standing orders. The Minister has the call. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point is relevance. I take exception to the Minister's reference to Dalgety's. As a stock and station agent, I ask the Minister to withdraw his remark.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will resume his seat.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: While the Leader of the Opposition was employed at Dalgety's, the company recorded its first losses in 16 years, losing up to $50 million. Within a year of the Leader of the Opposition joining a stock and station agent— 4660 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: The answer has nothing to do with the question. The Minister is consistently talking down small business. He has also launched an attack on the Leader of the Opposition. He should do so only by substantive motion. I ask you to call him to order and answer the question he was asked, which was actually a question relating to small business in rural New South Wales.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. I will hear further from the Minister. I ask the Minister to relate his answer to issues related to small business.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Of course there are Debnam's missing years in small business. His official curriculum vitae used to claim that in 1985-86 he was the owner-operator of a fitness centre. That is small business.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: It is obvious now that this is an attack on the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister should know that he can only do so by substantive motion—or he should put his own record forward of getting his size from his Mum and Dad's takeaway shop. The Minister has never had his hands dirty from operating small business in his life.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. The question related to the slashing of red tape and related matters. While the Chair is willing to extend some latitude to the Minister in relation to "related matters", I ask him to relate those matters to the cutting of red tape for small business.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I am very proud of the fact that my mother, who by sheer coincidence happens to be in the public gallery today, and my late father were people who operated a small business. I am also very proud of the fact that from time to time I had the opportunity to work beside them in their small businesses.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Myall Lakes will cease calling out.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The fact remains that the Leader of the Opposition claims to have had experience as a small business operator. He needs to back that up with some fact.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: You have given the Minister a direction—quite a proper direction.
Mr SPEAKER: With which the Minister was quite plainly complying. The question related to the Government cutting red tape and related matters. The Minister was making a comparison between the policies of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition and those of the Premier. The Minister is in order.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Mr Speaker, you did not allow me to finish. I was about to say—
Mr David Campbell: How many calls do you want?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Listen, you lying union hack, I am taking a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the third time. What is your point of order?
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Small Business will cease calling out.
Mr Brad Hazzard: If the Minister had been a good union official, that would have been worthwhile, but he is a union hack.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will either address the Chair or resume his seat.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Standing Order 82 states:
Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members of either House are disorderly other than by substantive motion.
I ask you to direct him to comply with your order and also Standing Order 82. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4661
Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I have already stated, the Minister was directed to do that. The question related to the Government cutting red tape for small business and related matters. The latter part of the Minister's answer was in order. He is perfectly competent and capable of drawing comparisons between the policies of the Leader of the Opposition and those of the Premier. The Minister has the call.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I have concluded my answer.
Questions without notice concluded.
JAMES HARDIE FORMER SUBSIDIARIES (WINDING UP AND ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (TRUST FUNDS) BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
Nuclear Power
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.58 p.m.]: My motion should be afforded priority because yesterday the Prime Minister's specially appointed task force on nuclear energy released its final paper on future options for the development of nuclear energy in Australia. The report proposes 25 nuclear power stations to be built near major coastal cities. This motion should be afforded priority because, given that the Prime Minister has recently said that the case for nuclear power is obvious and compelling, the urgency of this debate could not be more apparent. This motion should be given priority because we have the Prime Minister supporting nuclear energy and now we have his specially appointed task force suggesting new sites for nuclear power stations. The people of New South Wales have a right to hear what their political representatives think about this important issue.
Mr Andrew Stoner: You know that is not true.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: It is an important issue and those opposite should be supporting this motion for priority. They should be in there with bells on. All other States are opposed to nuclear energy. Even the Opposition in Victoria is opposing nuclear power stations in that State. I might have to qualify that statement because of the fact that Victoria is facing an election in a few days. Nevertheless, honourable members opposite should be thinking very seriously about it because they will be in the same boat very shortly. This motion should be given priority because the New South Wales Premier has stood firm on this issue, saying no to nuclear power for some time now. What we want to know is where the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vaucluse, stands on this issue. For that reason the motion should be afforded priority.
Ministerial Accountability
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.00 p.m.]: My motion should be given priority for debate because the Premier must give the people of New South Wales an assurance that there is some semblance of ministerial accountability in his Government. My motion must be given priority because, if he has one ounce of credibility, the Premier will not hide behind parliamentary process and will debate this motion. In the last month the rottenness of the Iemma-Costa Labor Government has been revealed. The former Minister for Police was forced to resign because he misled Parliament on two occasions. The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Milton Orkopoulos, has been accused of serious crimes—
Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: Once again the slow-learning Leader of The Nationals is getting to the substance of the motion. He is not arguing priority; he is just trying to get as much rubbish on the record as possible.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. Thirty-five seconds is not long enough to establish a basis for the point of order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I was merely proving that this issue of ministerial accountability must be debated. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police has been charged with drink-driving offences. The Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance have been caught using taxpayers' money to pay parking fines. More recently, the Treasurer, Michael Costa, has been referred to the Independent 4662 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] over the sacking of the Chairman of Transgrid and the appointment of a union mate to Transgrid's super board. This is an urgent matter for debate because we have a Premier who refuses to enforce his own code of conduct on the Minister for Energy, a man who might well move his office nearer to the ICAC. During debate on reordering of general business prior to question time today I clearly laid out how the Minister for Energy's business associates on the board of the Calabria Club stand to benefit from the rezoning of land—
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: The honourable member's comments about the Minister for Energy moving his office closer to ICAC is clearly a personal reflection on a member of this House. He has therefore transgressed—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I will hear further from the honourable member for Maroubra.
Mr Michael Daley: I will just wait until they—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Maroubra will direct his remarks through the Chair. He should not worry about members of the Opposition.
Mr Michael Daley: It is a clear transgression of Standing Order 82.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! At this stage I do not believe it is, but I will look at the standing orders. The Leader of The Nationals may continue.
Mr ANDREW STONER: This motion should be debated today because section 3.2 of the Premier's ministerial code of conduct clearly sets the benchmark for ministerial accountability. That section states:
A Minister shall not use his or her position for the private gain of the Minister or for the improper gain of any other person.
So as to ensure that such does not appear to have occurred a Minister shall avoid a situation in which it might reasonably be thought that the Ministerial position is being so used or that a possible conflict of interest has arisen.
That is why this matter should have priority for debate today. The benchmark for ministerial accountability is the perception of a reasonable person in relation to that Minister's actions. The key words—
Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: What is happening here is that the Leader of The Nationals is now canvassing matters that may or may not be the subject of an ICAC complaint or inquiry. He is being very vague about it, but that is exactly what he is trying to do. He is trying to get on the record something that really is sub judice and that he should not be canvassing at this stage. Once again, members opposite are all products of the white shoe brigade. The North Coast Nationals have all been impregnated by the white shoe brigade.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The Leader of The Nationals should be giving reasons why his motion should have priority. He is going into far too much argumentative detail.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Prior to question time today I sought precedence to have a debate about this matter but the Government, led by the Premier, refused to debate the matter tomorrow. We want to debate this matter, but the Government is shutting down the debate. The question needs to be asked: Why is that so? Could it be that the Premier is, or has been, a member of the Calabria Club? I challenge him to clarify this and declare his interest. We need to know why the Government is covering this matter up.
Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The Leader of The Nationals is clearly canvassing—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals has the call.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The challenge is there for the Premier: enforce the code of conduct and enforce the standards in this Government. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Tweed be proceeded with—put. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4663
The House divided.
Ayes, 47
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Black Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Chaytor Mr McBride Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Daley Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Morris Tellers, Ms Gadiel Mr Newell Mr Corrigan Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Mr Martin
Noes, 37
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr McTaggart Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Maguire
Pair
Mr Bartlett Mr Armstrong
Question resolved in the affirmative.
NUCLEAR POWER
Urgent Motion
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.14 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Premier on standing up to Canberra against the Howard Government's plans to build nuclear power stations in New South Wales;
(2) supports the Iemma Government's renewable energy targets and the development of cleaner, safer and cheaper energy sources; and
(3) calls on the New South Wales Coalition to show some character by joining the Iemma Government's opposition to Canberra's plans for nuclear power stations in New South Wales.
The Government says no to nuclear power, and says it very definitely. The Government wants to send a clear message to Canberra that we will fight any attempt to establish nuclear power plants in New South Wales. The 4664 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
last time the issue was debated in this House the honourable member for Gosford, Chris Hartcher, said that nuclear energy was not an issue because "No decision has been made about nuclear power. No location anywhere is regarded as a potential site, and there will be no discussion about potential sites." Since then the Prime Minister has said that the nuclear energy case is "compelling and obvious"—very strong words. Today Dr Switkowski suggested that Australia should build 25 power stations along the coast. An article in the Daily Telegraph suggesting potential sites, which include Wollongong, Illawarra and the North Coast, highlights this important issue, which affects the people of New South Wales.
The position of the Premier on this matter is crystal clear and unwavering. The issue is of great concern to the people of New South Wales and deserves our fullest attention. Today's editions of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph have reported on nuclear energy. I consider some of those reports to be a little colourful in their proposals. The Prime Minister's words "compelling and obvious" do not back up the argument when compared with what has been forthcoming today in the debate about whether we need nuclear energy. Many people have pointed out that the amount of nuclear energy reserves and fuel stocks within this globe would supply the world's energy sources for only two to three years if we were to take out other sources of energy production.
Clearly nuclear energy is not an option; it is not an acceptable source of energy when we consider its costs. Articles in today's newspapers have pointed out the costs that would be involved in building power stations, disposing of spent fuel, and dismantling the power stations at the end of their life, but they were not mentioned in Dr Switkowski's report. Power stations are very expensive to build, maintain and dismantle. I am talking only of the economic costs, not the costs of storing the spent fuel for hundreds of thousands of years and the potential problems for future generations if anything goes wrong with the power stations. They are not merely shut down; they cause all sorts of problems, as history indicates.
As I indicated, the position of the Premier on this issue is crystal clear and unwavering. He said, "While ever I am Premier of New South Wales there will not be any nuclear power plants in New South Wales." We can back up those words with legislation because, thanks to the foresight of the Unsworth Government, nuclear facilities have been illegal in New South Wales since 1986. The New South Wales Premier has gone in to bat for the people of New South Wales, as he has done on issue after issue with the Federal Government. I could rattle off a number of issues. I remind honourable members of the unfair GST distribution, an issue we are having a little trouble convincing the Opposition to support. We are getting support from many areas, including community groups, about the unfairness of that transfer of funds to other States after cutting into the finances of New South Wales.
The New South Wales Government is supporting hardworking families by opposing WorkChoices. It is also standing up to the Prime Minister and holding him to account for his failure to stop interest rate rises. With regard to all these issues the Leader of the Opposition has sat on his hands and said very little—in fact, he has said nothing. He is too scared to fight his political masters down in Canberra, while he is very happy to engage solely in personal attacks rather than represent the views of New South Wales citizens. That is regrettable, and it demeans all of us. At the same time, it does nothing to further the development of good policy on issues in this State.
We need the Leader of the Opposition to come clean on this issue and to say where he stands. The position of the honourable member for Gosford is now so clearly out of date that the people of New South Wales need to know what his position really is. Even if the Leader of the Opposition says he will oppose nuclear power, he cannot be trusted on the matter. He has no form on the board, and he has failed to stand up to the Federal Government regarding issues such as those I indicated—the GST, WorkChoices and interest rates.
In stark contrast, the Iemma Government has a proven record of looking out for the interests of hardworking New South Wales families. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the country in dealing with climate change. We set up the first State-based greenhouse gas abatement scheme, we have led the other States towards a national emissions trading scheme, and only two weeks ago the Premier announced a new target for renewable energy use across the State. The new renewable energy target will be 10 per cent of all energy used in New South Wales to come from renewable sources by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2020. It would be great if we could get the Opposition to work with us on a bipartisan level to ensure that the target is maintained and supported. Not only that; we want the Federal Government to support those sorts of actions also.
We want the Federal Government to move in and sign the Kyoto protocol, but it will not do so. That is one of its big failings and regrets, and one of the big minuses that history will show against the Howard 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4665
Government because of its reluctance to sign up for the things people need—not just in New South Wales but in Australia and worldwide. The New South Wales approach is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by increasing our reliance on renewable energies—not nuclear energy, which appears to be the preference of the Prime Minister. We want to make sure that nuclear energy is not the preference of the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition. There is nothing to be gained from us going down that track, but there is a lot to be gained from us going down the track of other sources of renewable energy.
That is where the Federal Government has let us down in its leadership. It has let us down immensely. The Federal Government is prepared to simply leave the issue to the market, rather than lead on the issue and support industries to develop so they can form a base, get moving, and have the critical mass to ensure we develop alternative forms of energy in industries, which will enable us to reduce our dependence on fuels such as coal and so on in the future. It would be simply fantastic if the Prime Minister were to do a backflip of some sort and sign up to the Kyoto protocol, rather than engage in the tokenism we have seen in the past. The Prime Minister made the grandiose statement— which was absolutely ridiculed in the media—that he wanted to lead on global warming. His statement was certainly treated with disdain and dismissed for what it was: a cynical ploy on his part to pretend he is out there doing something when he is not.
The people of Tweed will simply not tolerate the establishment of a nuclear power plant near their homes. I know that Tweed residents simply do not want nuclear power. It is too dangerous, it is unnecessary, it is a risk to people's safety, and it is unnecessary for our power needs. We can go down other tracks, with leadership from the New South Wales Government and other State governments. Importantly, however, we need leadership from the Federal Government, which is, for some reason or another, very reluctant to go down that path. As I indicated, the Federal Government is happy to simply leave the issue to the marketplace, which will not supply the types of industries we want here.
The people of Tweed and New South Wales in general are moving towards the use of more green energy, rather than nuclear energy, and many of them are signing up and are prepared to pay a small premium on their power bills to ensure that a percentage of their electricity account is generated by green sources. The people of Tweed want to protect their environment; they do not want to destroy it with a nuclear power station. They want to move towards safer, greener forms of energy, rather than gamble with a risky, dangerous use of nuclear power. [Time expired.]
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [4.24 p.m.]: Months ago I said there would be no nuclear energy in New South Wales. The honourable member for Tweed has an appropriate nickname—Napping Neville—because he has simply been asleep. For months we have made the point that we will rule out nuclear energy in New South Wales. The Prime Minister can talk about nuclear energy for as long as he wishes, but it will not happen in New South Wales. Indeed, I am pleased that the Premier eventually confirmed that. I do not know how many times over the past few months I have stated that we will rule out nuclear energy, but Napping Neville has simply missed the point.
The point we have made over the past few months is that we are not interested in nuclear power in New South Wales; it is 50-year-old technology. It is interesting to look at the review that has been done, but it is old technology from the last century. We want to move forward to the next generation. Clearly, we want to move forward with clean coal technology; we want to move forward with renewable energy. But we want to look beyond that; we want to look into the future. The Labor Party, as ever, wants to drag back over old technology and try to play partisan politics on something upon which we have made our position very clear for the past few months: There will simply be no nuclear energy in New South Wales under the Liberal and National parties. That has been placed on record I do not know how many times over the past few months, but Napping Neville has missed it.
It is important to understand the frustration of the Prime Minister. He is talking about climate change and the community's concerns. He is doing so because the States have done nothing to address the issue. The whole concept in addressing climate change is to think globally and act locally. That requires the States to take some action, but they have not. It has been the biggest disgrace in New South Wales for 12 years. The Labor Government talks about building a desalination plant. Members of the Labor Party should talk to their environmental friends about that. What did Bob Carr say about a desalination plant? Bottled electricity. What is the Premier doing about it? He is building a desalination plant. This year he is spending $120 million on a desalination plant—the worst case of environmental vandalism we have seen in New South Wales for some time. And he is planning to spend a couple of billion dollars if he is successful in winning the election. 4666 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Let us have a look at pollution. Sydney has the worst pollution in Australia, largely because the New South Wales Government over the past 12 years has failed to meet its clean air targets and failed to attract people to public transport. Let us look at public transport. The Government has simply failed to deliver effective, efficient public transport that is of use to the people of New South Wales.
Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Leader of the Opposition is not directing his remarks to the motion before the Chair.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: I think that is a pathetic point of order.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I do not appreciate the assistance of the Leader of the Opposition when I am ruling on a point of order. The bulk of the Leader of the Opposition's earlier remarks were directed particularly to paragraph 3 of the motion. At this stage he may continue.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: Let us understand the Prime Minister's frustration. The States have simply continued to fail, and under Labor New South Wales has failed for 12 years. Let us look at alternative fuels. Who put ethanol on the agenda? We did. The Leader of The Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition put ethanol on the agenda, and what happened? It took a couple of months before the Premier decided he had better do something about it. What does my car run on? It runs on 85 per cent ethanol. What does the Premier's car run on? Straight petrol. Why does the Premier not take on board ethanol and alternative fuels, such as biodiesel? Why does he not do something about it?
That is the problem with this weak, bumbling Premier: he simply talks; he does not act. When we talk about climate change we talk about thinking globally and acting locally. That is exactly what the Labor Party has not done. That is why months ago I ruled out nuclear energy, the Leader of the Nationals ruled it out, the honourable member for Ballina ruled it out, and Coalition members ruled it out. We said there will be no nuclear power in New South Wales. We will go for clean coal technology; we will go for renewable technology; we will move forward to the next generation. We want to move forward, rather than go with old technology.
Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [4.29 p.m.]: I take much pleasure in supporting the motion. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has left the Chamber. I would like to know what he has done to oppose nuclear energy in this State. Has he written to Prime Minister Howard? Did he put in a submission to Switkowski?
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: Is the member deaf? I put it out in the media for two months and I talked about it for five minutes. I talk to the Federal Government all the time. The Federal Government certainly understands my point view that there will be no nuclear power in New South Wales.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call him to order.
Ms MARIE ANDREWS: The Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Taskforce draft report was released yesterday and I am sad to say that its findings are bad news for the people of the Central Coast. I speak today on behalf of the people of the Central Coast, for whom having a nuclear power plant in their backyards is a terrible outcome and who are rightly concerned about the risks of having a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Where will they put the plant? Will it be on the Woy Woy peninsula, or in The Entrance or Gosford? How will they protect the residents against a plant failure? Will they guarantee that the plant will be resistant to major shocks such as the earthquake that hit Newcastle in 1989? Where will the waste be put?
I am advised that the report notes that nuclear energy could be deliverable to the energy grid within 10 to 15 years. The report says that nuclear plant should be near big cities, rivers or oceans, so it is hardly surprising that the Sydney Morning Herald has nominated Vales Point as a potential site. It is not on the never-never. The issue is real and the Prime Minister appears to be pushing it. He says the case for nuclear power is "obvious and compelling." I can say that the case against it is obvious and compelling to the people of the Central Coast.
I am against it and so is the Premier of New South Wales. Premier Iemma is steadfastly against nuclear energy in New South Wales. Not only has he taken the fight to Canberra—something the Leader of the Opposition has failed to do—he has developed an alternative way of dealing with our power needs going forward. The Premier has repeatedly stated that New South Wales will not go nuclear as long as he is Premier. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4667
He has stated that he will fight on behalf of all New South Wales residents to stop nuclear power plants in our State.
The New South Wales Government approach is different. Our investments have been in air, solar and other renewable energy. Only two weeks ago the Government committed to a new renewable energy target of 15 per cent by 2020. This is another big step towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It sits on the back of the State-based Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme and our efforts at securing a national emissions trading scheme. When it comes to the environment this Government sees climate change as a core issue, something that we deal with day in and day out. It is not a fad of the day, something that comes and goes, as the Opposition sees it. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition in New South Wales has remained silent on this issue for too long. In the last parliamentary debate in this House they said they did not need a position on nuclear power because no decision was being made.
Mr Michael Richardson: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition made our position crystal clear only a few minutes ago. The member should not mislead the House.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for The Hills will resume his seat. The honourable member for Peats has the call.
Ms MARIE ANDREWS: Again today the Prime Minister is supporting nuclear power, with his own appointed task force recommending nuclear power plants as an option. It is simply not credible for the Opposition to remain silent on this issue. Today the Opposition must come clean.
Mr Donald Page: Point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House. On 7 November the Echo reported my response to it as, "Page says no nuclear power".
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Ballina will resume his seat. The honourable member for Peats has the call.
Mr Donald Page: The evidence is there. Have a look at it.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The honourable member for Ballina will stop waving pamphlets and resume his seat. If he does not, I will call him to order.
Ms MARIE ANDREWS: Given the failure by the Leader of the Opposition in the past to stand up to Canberra on any issue, this is a faint hope. Where was he when New South Wales families were looking for respite from interest rate hikes? Where was he when the Howard Government's cruel WorkChoices regime ripped entitlements from hardworking New South Wales families? Where was he when the Iemma Government was taking up the fight against the unfair GST distribution?
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [4.34 p.m.]: What a load of rubbish from the honourable member for Peats. She must have had wax in her ears because the Leader of the Opposition categorically ruled out—not once but six or seven times—nuclear power under a Coalition government in New South Wales. The Premier cannot even maintain power to the Parliament of New South Wales while the House is sitting. Less than an hour ago he was saying that he could categorically guarantee there would be no blackouts. What a joke this Government has become. What has just happened in the House with the lights going out is a clear indication of how poorly this Government is looking after electricity supply in New South Wales.
The Leader of the Opposition dealt with the nuclear issue quite clearly and the honourable member for Ballina, who is also the shadow Minister for the North Coast, dealt with it a couple of weeks ago when he ruled out nuclear power on the North Coast. At a conference for Southern Cross University students he said:
Global warming is no longer an issue that can sit on the backburner. According to a feature article on global warming published in a recent edition of Time Magazine, the world has reached a tipping point and we must act now before it is too late.
I believe sustainable development and addressing climate change must be at the forefront of policy at all levels of government. We need leadership on this issue.
It is total hypocrisy for the Government to guarantee there will be no blackouts in New South Wales this summer when a local high school in Ballina wanted to switch to green power but was not allowed to do so; it was completely ruled out. The arrant nonsense of members opposite is shown clearly by the actions of this 4668 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
incompetent Government. Members may be interested to know that 7.5 million tonnes more coal is burned to generate electricity for New South Wales each year compared with when Labor was first elected to government.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the need to invest in clean coal technology. The motion does not refer to that, nor did the honourable member for Tweed mention it. It is probably a little beyond his ken— maybe he did not bother to do his homework, or perhaps he could not find somebody to write something intelligent for him. He certainly could not deliver anything intelligent. The Government has tried three times now to deal with renewable energy or reducing greenhouse gases. First, it launched the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, which will cost electricity consumers in New South Wales $2.1 billion over seven years, with most of the investment going to Victoria. Indeed, 95 per cent of the money spent in the first year of the scheme was spent on existing projects. It was not used to stimulate investment on new projects, particularly renewable energy. It then switched to the State-based national trading scheme, which the Coalition knew would never work. So finally, in desperation, the Government came up with the New South Wales Renewable Energy Target [NRET] Scheme.
The NRET Scheme is absolutely full of holes. Without appropriate safeguards it will go the same way as the New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates. There will be no new projects and nothing built in New South Wales because it allows those renewable projects to be built in other States. So once again New South Wales electricity consumers will be subsidising electricity generation in other States. That is a disgrace. That is what the honourable member for Tweed described as good government. We do not describe it as good government at all. [Time expired.]
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.39 p.m.]: The honourable member for The Hills has put forward one of the most illogical arguments I have ever heard in this House. He refused to rule out nuclear power. Not once did he address the issue and say, "We will stand up with the Iemma Government to fight Canberra and make sure there is no nuclear power in this State." When the honourable member for The Hills stood up the lights went out. The lights in his head might go off but I say, "Let there be light" and we will see light come back; the forces of light will again take over the forces of darkness.
Mr Thomas George: Point of order: It is relevant that we are talking about power because the honourable member for Southern Highlands asked this very question: What are you doing about the blackouts?
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The debate is not about the honourable member for Southern Highlands. The honourable member for Lismore will resume his seat. The honourable member for Kiama has the call.
Mr MATT BROWN: As honourable members can see, when Government members talk, the lights come back on. Today I speak on behalf of the residents of the Illawarra, and Kiama in particular, to add their opposition to what is obviously becoming a strategy by the Prime Minister of introducing nuclear power to New South Wales. It is simply not on for the people of the Illawarra.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the House has suffered a significant power surge and there is a complete system shutdown. The lights will be off for a few minutes while the problem is fixed. The debate will then resume.
Mr MATT BROWN: I stand behind the Premier, who said this morning of nuclear power:
It has no future in New South Wales.
I'll stand up for the people of this State against John Howard's nuclear ambitions.
We've got legislation in NSW that outlaws nuclear power and have absolutely no intention of changing that law so long as I am Premier.
I agree with the Premier. The Prime Minister's task force draft report states that nuclear power could be viable within 10 to 15 years. It also states that possible power station sites should be located in big cities or near rivers or oceans in the electricity grid. It is no surprise that the Illawarra and the South Coast would be targets, given these criteria. The time to act against the Howard Government's plan is now. We need to be steadfast in our opposition to this. It is no longer good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to stay silent, as he did last time this issue was debated in New South Wales. We remember the interview on 2GB on 4 June 2006.
Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: The honourable member for Kiama is deliberately misleading the House. Not five minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition categorically ruled out nuclear power. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4669
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga will resume his seat. The honourable member for Kiama has the call.
Mr MATT BROWN: Members opposite are sensitive. On 2GB on 4 June 2006 the Leader of the Opposition said:
I just honestly don't think it's an issue that people in NSW will have to deal with in the short to medium term … I'd say to everybody in New South Wales—it's not an issue.
That is a joke. It is an issue to the people of the Illawarra and the South Coast, and I stand behind the Premier in his opposition to any Howard Government plan to install nuclear power in New South Wales.
Mrs Shelley Hancock: What do you know about the people of the South Coast?
Mr MATT BROWN: Interestingly, only now has the honourable member for South Coast come into the Chamber; not once has she participated in this debate. The Government believes that the answer to our energy needs and environmental protection is a mixture of policies. We have a strong and detailed plan: greater use of renewables, such as wind, air and hydro; better demand management for electricity use; and investment in clean coal technologies to reduce the environmental effect of coal-based energy supplies. Last week the Premier turned the first sod at the Tallawarra gas plant, and announced a new arrangement with BlueScope Steel that will see its greenhouse emissions decline.
Mrs Shelley Hancock: Is that what the natives think about Bemiring?
Mr MATT BROWN: The honourable member for South Coast mentions Bemiring.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for South Coast has a lot to say, although she has only just arrived in the Chamber. I warn her that she should remain silent.
Mr MATT BROWN: The honourable member for South Coast should get behind Bemiring. In that regard, she has done nothing to attract investment to date. All she has done is whinge and harp and carp, which is typical of members opposite. Remember that the lights went out when the honourable member for The Hills got up to speak. The forces of darkness were speaking. When Government members got up, the lights came on, but they came on without nuclear power. Get behind the Government! Stand up to Canberra and start doing something for the people of this State for once!
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.44 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this exciting debate. At the outset I thank the Leader of the Opposition for saying that "there will be no nuclear energy as a power source in New South Wales". We note the qualification: "in New South Wales". He did not rule out any opposition to the use of nuclear energy.
Mr Michael Richardson: Yes he did.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: The Leader of the Opposition said "in New South Wales".
Mr Michael Richardson: Point of order—
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for The Hills will resume his seat. The honourable member for Tweed has the call.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: We note the Leader of the Opposition's qualification. We also note that he did not attempt—he spoke for only four minutes and 45 seconds of his 10 minutes—to refute any of the obvious and compelling reasons that John Howard has stated as supporting the establishment of a nuclear power industry in New South Wales or Australia. The honourable member for Kiama eloquently pointed out what the Leader of the Opposition said on 4 June 2006:
I'd say to everybody in NSW—it's not an issue.
But it is an issue now. We note that the Leader of the Opposition qualified his comment about nuclear energy as a power source in New South Wales. I also note his other comments during his four minute and 45 second contribution to this debate. 4670 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Mr Thomas George: How long did you speak for? You didn't even speak for 10 minutes.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: I was happy to speak for 10 minutes. You can check the record. What nonsense! The honourable member for Lismore comes up with a lot of nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition also took exception to other environmental issues, including the use of ethanol [E10] fuel. I point out to members opposite that the Government has issued fuel cards for the use of E10 in government vehicles. We want to ensure that E10 becomes more readily available. It will become more available with good industry policy, not just in New South Wales but nationally, if we ever get a Federal government that is really interested in alternative fuels. I commend the honourable member for Peats and the honourable member for Kiama for their contributions. I appreciate their support for this motion. At times the honourable member for The Hills and the Leader of the Opposition got a little lost in the debate but we have this quasi-support for a stance against the establishment of nuclear energy as a power source in New South Wales. We will see how serious that is in the next few days. I am sure the debate will be extended considerably—
Mr Donald Page: Point of order: Given we have had some debate on the motion, I wonder whether the mover would consider deleting paragraph 3 of the motion?
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. That issue should have been dealt with during the debate.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: The Opposition has had its speakers on this matter and has missed the boat. In New South Wales the State Government is pushing ahead with renewable energy targets, which are so critical in helping to develop alternative forms of energy. I commend the Premier for his recent statement with regard to those targets, to ensure that we have the bones of the development of an industry. If we had a national industry policy we could move faster to establish these industries and give them the synergy to develop. We miss the Federal Government not having a national policy on this, not having incentives, through taxation or other business interests, to ensure that businesses can invest and grow this type of industry. As I said in my opening remarks, one of the big failures of the Federal Government is its total reliance on industry policy. That has been a failure and it has never delivered on this issue.
Motion agreed to.
WATER
Matter of Public Importance
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.53 p.m.]: There are few matters more important to the future of this State than water. Right now we are in the middle of one of the most serious droughts ever seen in this country; this is a record-breaking drought. Many regional and rural towns are on severe water restrictions. Many irrigators have had allocations cut either completely or to very low levels. Water inflows for this year and last year have been significantly below historical minimum levels. Farmers in New South Wales are suffering, with Australian farm gross domestic product expected to fall by about 20 per cent and rural exports expected to fall by about 9 per cent. New South Wales is one of the States hardest hit by this drought. Rural communities are struggling with what the Federal Treasurer has called a rural recession with widespread impact on business. The jobs are drying up at the same rate as the rivers, putting entire communities at risk.
This matter of public importance is not about the drought; it is about water—although they are, of course, strongly related matters. Australia is, as the poet said, a land of drought and flooding rains. We know that beyond this drought the rains will come again. I have no doubt that when the drought breaks there will be flooding rains. What do we learn from the lessons of this most serious drought? Let us hope that we learn we have to prepare better for the next drought. The Federal Government has put in place various initiatives to help our farming community to get through the drought, particularly the farm management deposit scheme, which has set up many farmers financially, but let us help not just farmers but entire communities to prepare, beyond this drought, for the next drought. Let us help them harness and conserve that most precious of resources— water.
This is a widespread water crisis. We are not talking only about country New South Wales, although that is my favourite topic; we are talking about the metropolitan areas of the State also. The Central Coast is suffering severe water shortages, with high-level water restrictions. In Sydney, water restrictions have been in 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4671
place continuously for some years. In Sydney the dam levels are below 40 per cent. The Government has announced various metropolitan water plans—many announcements and many promises—but there has been little in the way of delivery. We have gone from the desalination plant planned for Kurnell, which the Government, in the face of severe opposition has canned temporarily—and I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the desalination plant being bottled electricity.. The Government spent $120 million on that desalination plant, and this is a sleeper for after the election, should the Labor Party be re-elected next year. Why? Because it simply does not have any other options.
The metropolitan water plan talked about accessing groundwater from Leonay and Kangaloon in the west of Sydney and the Southern Highlands respectively. No doubt there are significant groundwater reserves in place there, but the Government has not done its homework, despite knowledge of those aquifers. It does not have a handle on the sustainable yield of those resources. It does not know what the recharge rate is. It does not know how much it can take out and it is ill-prepared to access those groundwater supplies. Despite a promise from the Premier that they would be accessed when dam levels dropped below 40 per cent, the Government is simply not ready to proceed with that.
Another part of the metropolitan water plan is the so-called deepwater storage access program. This is a huge con job on the people of New South Wales. "Deepwater access" simply means plumbing the depths of dams, scraping the bottom of the barrel. There is no additional water in the dams. Overnight the Government added 5 per cent to the dam supply figures even though the deepwater storage access program was not yet online. There was no additional water but suddenly the statistics went up by 5 per cent. Clearly it is a case of fudging the figures. Expert opinion is that this water is undrinkable; it does not meet the standard of dissolved oxygen levels. Accessing deepwater storage would stir up sediments, which are likely to be toxic because they have been there for a long time. The experts are saying that even if the Government eventually uses this deepwater storage access program, the water is undrinkable and it is unlikely that it could be treated and made drinkable without massive expense to the taxpayer.
What have we had from the Government, which has been in office for 12 years? During much of that time the State has been in drought and metropolitan Sydney has had a massive growth in population. We have had words, a plan, but we have had no new water infrastructure for the people of Sydney. The Government has been responsible for the massive waste of this city's water resources. There has been an unaccounted for water loss of about 10 per cent—that is, about 150 Olympic swimming pools per day—through leaky pipes and mains and a loss of more than 400 billion litres of waste water out of Sydney's ocean outfalls. The Government tells country communities to recycle their water and use it for irrigation and industrial and environmental flows. Yet the Government uses the water out of Sydney's dams, chiefly Warragamba, and the Nepean just once and then flushes it out to sea. That water is only primary treated.
Another great con of the Premier's has been to extend the ocean outfalls, but not to improve the treatment of water. There has been a massive waste of resources, there have been a lot of words, but there has been no action. The Government has not put plans in place to deal with the population growth and has made no improvements to water infrastructure. After 12 years of huge rivers of revenue flowing into State coffers, the Government has not planned for or invested in water infrastructure for this city. The problem does not stop in Sydney; it goes right across the State. I have previously referred to the Central Coast, where the situation is dire. The Government is in trouble in the Hunter because of a number of scandals and the arrogant way it takes the people of the Hunter for granted.
The Government recently announced the construction of a dam at Tillegra. More words! That is demonstrated by the fact that the Tillegra Dam proposal was put up 15 years ago and was knocked on the head because it was not considered cost-effective compared to a proposal to enhance the capacity of Grahamstown Dam and better utilise its resources or other measures such as demand management and recycling. The Government announced a dam to get a favourable headline in the Hunter. It has annoyed a lot of people around Dungog who are worried their valley will be flooded. The Government has announced a dam, but it has not built one in 12 years and is unlikely to do so. The people of New South Wales want to know the Government's plans for water.
I will inform the House about the Coalition's plans for water. We will investigate a range of dam sites around the State, including Tillegra, Turill and Dunoon, an off-river storage at Narrandera and some dam sites in the Northern Tablelands. These dams are feasible due to the increased value of water and enhanced engineering techniques. The Coalition does not have a problem with dams because, unlike the Labor Party, we do not have a preference deal with the Greens. The Labor Party will not build a dam because radical Greens tell 4672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
them not to. We believe dams are good for the environment and people. Controlled releases of water can enhance environmental flow and biodiversity.
Mr Thomas George: Catch it when it rains.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Catch it when it rains, as the honourable member for Lismore says. This is a land of drought and flooding rains. After 12 years Labor has had its chance to invest in water infrastructure. It has cut funding for the Country Towns Water and Sewerage Scheme. The Coalition will fund that scheme to $100 million per year. We will double the rainwater tank rebate and implement large-scale recycling and stormwater harvesting. The challenge is before us. The Government has had 12 years to deal with this important issue and has done nothing. A Debnam-Stoner Government will address the water crisis in New South Wales.
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [5.03 p.m.]: What an extraordinary contribution from the leader of the once-great Country Party! Is it any wonder that they are losing so many seats in country areas across this great State? The Nationals chose the topic of this debate; they chose to discuss water. Yet the Leader of The Nationals spent most of his time talking about matters relating to the coast and Sydney's water supply. The Government is here to talk about drought. I can inform the Leader of The Nationals that we are always happy to discuss drought. Last Wednesday in this place he led the way: The Nationals refused to discuss drought. They voted against discussing drought and then came back with some other nonsense, which I will speak about shortly. On a previous occasion the Leader of The Nationals said that we should debate the drought. Once again The Nationals voted against doing so. It is no wonder that later today the Leader of The Nationals is getting the award for the biggest dope of the Parliament—the mental stoner award will be going to the Oxley moron from Kempsey.
I want to refer to the nonsense that has been peddled by fellow travellers of The Nationals. I refer to a statement that was released today by a person who is well known to the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. Neil Eagle, on behalf of the Murray Darling Water Crisis Management Council, said in his statement:
Mr Black's only apparent drought relief initiative is to seek millions of Federal dollars to buy Cubbie Station. As P.M. Howard has rightly stated, this is a red herring and unrelated to the current drought crisis. Mr Black knows that this is an empty and pointless gesture as Cubbie is not the main problem on the Darling and buying it is not necessary to fixing the problem. But it gives Mr Black a scapegoat for his own inaction.
My inaction! The charge from The Nationals and their fellow travellers is that my only apparent drought relief initiative is to seek millions of Federal dollars to buy Cubbie station. I said that Cubbie Station was a good start. The Nationals do not want to buy Cubbie Station because John Grabbe funds The Nationals and Queensland senators such as Barnaby Joyce. There is no dispute about that; it is on the record. What are The Nationals going to do about their own national water initiative? The Federal Nationals are running the national water initiative— there are no two ways about it—and the State Government is being pushed time and again and threatened with fines and everything else under the sun if we do not go along with it. The topic of this debate, which was sought by The Nationals, is water.
Mr Thomas George: Water in New South Wales.
Mr PETER BLACK: Where are our troubles? Does the honourable member for Lismore say that our troubles are not in the Murray valley, the Murrumbidgee or the worst-affected valley, the Lachlan? In relation to Cubbie Station, Rick Colless, the master of sleaze in the upper House, has already taped his comments for Monday's program on 2CR. I will do it tomorrow. I will reply to the master of sleaze in the upper House on my terms about Cubbie Station. People down south know all about the nonsense The Nationals are carrying on with. The Government has published press releases about drought relief.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Bring on John Williams. Is this your valedictory speech?
Mr PETER BLACK: The Leader of The Nationals interjects. Last Wednesday when the Opposition was babbling on about the Government's inaction and other matters, they did not once mention the plight of dairy farmers. At the same time the dairy farmers were meeting with Minister McDonald about their plight in the south of the State. Tomorrow at 11.45 a.m. Ted Hatty, Chair of Southern Riverina Irrigators, Tim McKindlay from the Southern Riverina Irrigators, John Bruce, Mayor of Berrigan shire, Laurie Arthur, President of the Ricegrowers Association, Peter Middlebrook of the dairy industry and Jock Laurie from New South Wales Farmers will meet with the Premier. I arranged the meeting. What did that lot do? Nothing. Did The Nationals try to get anything done for those people? No. They walked away, as they have done consistently. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4673
The Government has been undertaking initiatives, and a lot of it has been my doing. That may not be recognised by The Nationals, but it is recognised by my constituents.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will contain himself.
Mr PETER BLACK: I have received numerous letters about the waiving of the western lands rentals. I was saluted by Nationals members for getting the dog called off on that issue.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals has had his opportunity to speak.
Mr PETER BLACK: Those people might stay Nationals members but they will vote for me because I get things done. The Government has expanded transport subsidies to May 2007. Did we hear any congratulations from the Opposition about that? No congratulations at all. The Opposition said that the subsidies would cut out in November. The Government did not say that. We said the subsidies would be reviewed in November. How long is a piece of string? I will keep the ball rolling. The Government has expanded the drought support workers program. What has that lot done? They have done absolutely nothing in the area of mental health.
Mr Thomas George: John Cobb did the lot.
Mr PETER BLACK: John Cobb did nothing. John Cobb did absolutely nothing about rural financial counsellors, and the honourable member for Lismore should be ashamed to mention that name in this place. The Government has extended access to the emergency household support program and provided additional funding to support the continuation of farm family gatherings and drought workshops. The Leader of The Nationals should talk to the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, because he knows these meetings are happening. The Government has provided business and credit management assistance for small businesses to help them to implement improvement and recovery strategies designed to sustain their operations beyond the drought. The Government has also deferred State Water quarterly billing for one year. A deputation came to me and I listened. I said that something had to be done, I made the right approaches, and we got the funding from Treasury. I do not remember any representations from that lot opposite on this matter.
The Government has also deferred the pest insect levy. What a good step! I have heard time and again what members opposite have had to say about locust plagues. John Cobb has been mentioned. He will not accept that locust plagues are a natural disaster. What an absolute disgrace! What is wrong with John Cobb? If I were to start listing what is wrong with him I would go on for a long time. The Government has continued payroll tax relief programs for regional businesses. That is good: It has funded six additional mental health workers. That is on top of funding provided for 71 mental health worker positions in rural New South Wales.
Mr Andrew Stoner: What does this have to do with the water crisis?
Mr PETER BLACK: What a stupid question! People who are really suffering come to me with the problems confronting them because of withdrawal of income, families falling apart and so on. What are that lot opposite doing? I notice that the emeritus mayor from Lane Cove has just walked into the Chamber. What an embarrassment it is for decent emeritus mayors to have him sitting next to them. There is not one potential mayor among that lot. At least we have some mayors in the Labor Party. The Government is also working in partnership with beyondblue. It was started by the Liberal Party, I hear tell. It certainly was not started by The Nationals, the "notional party" or whatever the hell they are going to call themselves next. The Government has implemented a range of measures.
[Interruption]
If we are going to talk about beyondblue, let us talk about the Murray program. That was a Federal program. Guess what the Federal Government said? It was going to fine New South Wales $17 million if it did not bring water trading forward to January. Where was the water to come from? It is going to be sold out of Sunraysia. More than 400 blocks are for sale in that area. That water will go to South Australia. The Nationals support the proposition that the water should be sold from New South Wales into South Australia. That is disgraceful. Members of The Nationals come out with nonsense about supporting environmental flows into South Australia. The deal is a Commonwealth initiative. Who is doing it? It is the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Who runs it? It is run by the Commonwealth Government, not that barmy lot opposite. 4674 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
No wonder he is known as the biggest dope in the Parliament. Why does he not understand that we are suffering a real drought and that Hughie is up there stopping the rain? It is not the Government. That lot are saying we should stop all environmental flows. They are back in the dark again. They should feel absolutely at home. This is an absolute disgrace. That lot over there are a disgrace. Unlike members opposite, this Government is working to solve water-related issues. That is the reason the Labor Party will be re-elected. [Time expired.]
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is approximately one and a half minutes left in which the honourable member for Murrumbidgee may speak. Pursuant to sessional orders the debate will then be interrupted.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [5.13 p.m.]: I foreshadow that I will seek leave to suspend standing orders to allow the continuation of debate on this matter of public importance given that it is about water, which is a vital issue across New South Wales. I hope the Government will be kind enough to grant that leave.
The entire State is facing a severe water crisis. A large part of that is the result of the Labor Government's failure over the past 12 years to plan to ensure the State's water supplies. Of course the State is facing a significant drought. However, the Government has done nothing to deal with this eventuality in Sydney, on the Central Coast, on the North Coast, in western New South Wales or on the South Coast. The water crisis is the result of the drought, but the Government has done nothing to ensure our water supplies. The situation with the Murrumbidgee River and the Murray River, in particular, is a complete disaster. The New South Wales Labor Government has made an already bad drought even worse by its bungling and its failure to monitor water supplies. It has been encouraging people to buy water in the Murray area. People have done so and have then been told by the Government that they can have access to only 50 per cent of that water. The honourable member for Murray-Darling is a member of the Labor Party. He can move a motion or introduce legislation at any time and urge his parliamentary colleagues—
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I seek leave to suspend standing and sessional orders to allow the continuation of debate on the matter of public importance.
Leave not granted.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [5.15 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended:
(1) at this or any subsequent sitting, to permit consideration of Legislative Council amendments between items of business;
(2) at this sitting,
(a) from the commencement of private members' statements, until the rising of the House, no divisions or quorums be called;
(b) from 7.30 p.m., valedictory speeches be made, at the conclusion of which the House adjourn without motion moved until 10.00 a.m. on Thursday 23 November 2006.
(3) on Thursday 23 November 2006,
(a) to vary the routine of business to not call on General Business;
(b) at 10.00 a.m., the House take note of Christmas felicitations; 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4675
(c) at 11.10 a.m., the business before the House be interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour and the House shall proceed to Government House for the presentation of the Address- in-Reply; and
(d) upon the House's return from Government House, valedictory speeches be made.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.18 p.m.]: The Coalition has agreed with the Leader of the House for two days, but we must draw the line here. We do so for a number of reasons. First, we understood that the agreement for this evening was not simply that honourable members make valedictories speeches, but that the Address-in-Reply debate would continue. It is upon that basis that we planned to have speakers. We are able to discipline our speakers to ensure that whatever else is happening in the House this evening they are ready to speak, and in an appropriate manner. We would expect that of the Government as well. I am not sure why we are curtailing contributions on the Address-in-Reply, which is to be presented to the Governor tomorrow.
Second, with all due respect to Christmas felicitations, I am very happy to have them tomorrow, but I am not happy to do so at 10.00 a.m. I respect the Governor of this State—she is a terrific person doing a great job—and I am more than happy for the House to adjourn at 11.30 a.m. to go to Government House to present the Address-in-Reply. However, I would be happier if we were adding to it this evening. The consequence of moving this motion for felicitations to occur at 10.00 a.m. will be to extinguish the rights of all members to raise private members' business tomorrow. That is important because many issues could, and should, be debated tomorrow. I personally would like to have a debate with the Minister for Transport about our respective economic prowess. The Minister delivered half of the Parramatta to Chatswood rail project at double the original cost. I am happy to compare that to the airport rail link project. I am also happy to debate the Premier about economic credentials, because this week he released a $660 million public transport statement. However, if one were to add up the amounts in the Premier's press releases one would find that the correct figure is $680 million.
That is the sort of cost overrun and sloppiness in relation to accounting that we have come to expect from the Government—the sloppiness in relation to financial affairs that means that the surpluses generated by enormous tax revenues in the first eight or nine years of the Government have been frittered away. It is the sort of sloppiness that means that, even today with the announcement of the new rail cars for Maitland, what has not been overlooked by anyone is that not only are they two years late but they are also almost 40 per cent over budget. I am sure that would concern the honourable member for Maitland.
Private members' day tomorrow would allow the Opposition to raise the scandalous issue of the long-awaited mental health bill being slipped in here yesterday and today when it cannot be passed by Parliament until after the next election. Last week the Government refused to introduce the mental health bill, which would have been a bipartisan exercise in getting reform in the mental health arena. Its passage through Parliament last week would have ensured that people who suffer from mental illness in this State, those who care for them and those who live with them would have been able to benefit from the legislation. But, no, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health) slipped into the House today and put the bill on the table, where it will lay for at least five months while people are denied the benefits it would provide. Why? It is because the Government cannot manage its business.
I am tired, and I know that the honourable member for Hornsby is tired, of asking the Minister for Fair Trading for the long-awaited amendments to the retirement villages legislation. The Retirement Villages Residents Association has grown sick and tired not only of this Minister but also of the two previous Ministers running around the State, issuing media releases every month, promising changes to that legislation and not delivering. As you know, Mr Deputy-Speaker, because you have as many retirement villages in your electorate as I have in mine, there are people living in retirement villages who are subjected to clauses that are, quite frankly, prejudicial to their interests and who have been looking for relief.
This is, once again, an issue that should have bipartisan support in the House, but it is an issue that the Government has mismanaged. The Opposition's principal objection to the motion is that it does away with private members' business tomorrow under the pretext of the felicitations. Under Standing Order 157 I ask you to put the motion as separate questions so that we can see what parts we agree with, which includes going down to Government House tomorrow at 11.30 a.m., and so that we can vote against those parts we do not approve of. There are three separate parts of a seven-part motion that we would like put separately.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 (a) of the motion agreed to. 4676 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Question—That paragraphs 2 (b), 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 44
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Black Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Chaytor Mr McBride Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Tellers, Ms Gadiel Mr Newell Mr Ashton Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Mr Martin
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr McTaggart Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Maguire
Pair
Mr Bartlett Mr Armstrong
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Paragraphs 2 (b), 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the motion agreed to.
Paragraphs 3 (c) and 3 (d) of the motion agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It being after 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. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4677
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
ROYAL REHABILITATION CENTRE SYDNEY SITE REDEVELOPMENT
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [5.40 p.m.]: As this House is aware, my local community of Putney and the surrounding districts are facing an overdevelopment of a massive scale at the Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney site. I wish to place on record a letter that I intend to send to the constituents of my electorate. It reads as follows:
I write to advise you of the New South Wales Coalition's policy in relation to the Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney Site.
As CAPO would be aware, I have spoken on this subject several times in State Parliament, most recently on the 26th of October, when I moved the Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney Site Protection Bill 2006 in the House.
I can confirm that the bill represents the official policy of the State Coalition, and if elected to Office in 2007, we intend to implement the principles set out within it.
The bill contains a number of measures to protect the Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney Site, and are as follows:
Clause 4 provides that the council is the consent authority in relation to the carrying out of any development on the site …
Clause 6 provides that development on the site cannot be carried out except with development consent under part 4 of the Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979.
Clause 7 of the bill provides that the only development that may be carried out on the site is development for the purposes of a detached dwelling-house, development for the purpose of a new purpose-built specialised rehabilitation facility or demolition or alteration of a building.
Clause 8 provides that proposed sections 6 and 7 do not affect the continuation of any existing use of the site for the purposes of a rehabilitation facility.
Clause 9 imposes a limit on residential development on the site. The council must not consent to the carrying out of development of the site for the purposes of a detached dwelling-house if, as a result of the development, the total floor space area of dwelling-houses on the site will exceed 51 per cent of the area of the site.
Clause 10 provides that the council must not consent to the carrying out of development on the site unless it has taken into consideration the concept plan prepared under proposed part 6.
Clause 11 provides that the council must not consent to the carrying out of development on the site unless it is satisfied that satisfactory alternative arrangements are made for users on the site who are displaced by the development, including the Riding for the Disabled Association of New South Wales.
Clause 12 requires the council to assess each of the buildings on the site immediately before the commencement of the proposed Act and to determine which buildings are worthy of protection from demolition or alteration and which are not.
Clause 13 provides that the council must not consent to the carrying out of development that involves the demolition or substantial alteration of a building that the council has determined is worthy of protection from demolition or alteration under the proposed Act …
Clause 15 provides for the reservation as public open space of that part of the site that is not being used as a rehabilitation facility or the subject of development consent after two years …
Clause 17 requires the council to landscape any land so acquired.
Clause 18 requires the council to consult the community consultative forum established under proposed part 7 on the management of the land so acquired.
Clause 19 requires the council to prepare and implement a concept plan for the site.
Clause 20 requires the council to consult with the community consultative forum in preparing a concept plan.
Clause 21 provides that the council must not consent to the carrying out of development on the site unless it is satisfied that the local community has been properly informed of the proposed development. In particular the council must not consent to an application for development consent unless the development application has been publicly notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 as if it were advertised development and the council has taken into account any objections received as part of that notification procedure.
Clause 22 makes it the duty of council to establish an effective procedure for community consultation concerning the management of land at the site reserved as public open space and the development of the concept plan for the site.
4678 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Clause 23 provides for the establishment of a community consultative forum.
Clause 24 provides that the proposed Act applies despite any provision of any other Act, or of any regulation or environmental planning instrument, and that nothing in the proposed Act prevents the making of an environmental instrument that imposes additional restrictions on development on the site or on the council's ability to consent to such a development …
This policy has been formulated with, and is supported by Chris Hartcher MP, Shadow Minister for Planning, who has countersigned this letter as a sign of the Coalition's commitment.
This development in Putney, in my electorate, which will affect the residents of Ryde and the surrounding districts, is being mirrored throughout Sydney. With regard to central planning and control, the Minister for Planning thinks he can ride roughshod over the community and that he does not need to engage in effective consultation. Certainly councils are not empowered to take the community's concerns on board. I place on record my thanks to the Coalition Against Private Overdevelopment, Mr Ralph Clapham, the many friends from the Weekly Times and the Northern District Times, and all the community members, often thousands of them, who have attended so many of the rallies held on Saturdays and Sundays.
HAROLD PARK PACEWAY NORTON PLAZA CHALLENGE
MENANGLE PARK PACEWAY
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [5.45 p.m.]: This Friday night, 24 November 2006, the forty-first running of the premier harness racing event in New South Wales, the Miracle Mile, will take place at Harold Park Paceway. In my view the Miracle Mile is challenged only by the Inter Dominion as the top harness racing event in Australia. As I have advised the House before, the New South Wales Harness Racing Club, which runs Harold Park, also operates Menangle Park Paceway, in my electorate. I am pleased with the redevelopment that the New South Wales Harness Racing Club is undertaking at Menangle Park, and I look forward to the opening of the 1,400-metre track, if not next year then in 2008.
However, I touch on these matters as a prelude to another event that is to take place on Miracle Mile night. In a one-off event, the Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Hon. Grant McBride, and I will participate in the Norton Plaza Challenge, which has raised $7,000 for charity. The challenge will involve the Minister and I driving pacers in a two-lap race around Harold Park. Both the Minister and I have been undergoing extensive training so we can carry out the race safely.
Mr Thomas George: Make sure you wear a helmet.
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: I will. I have been trained by Paul Fitzpatrick, and Michael Formosa has trained the Minister. On behalf of both of us I would like to thank both those men for their advice, patience and good humour. On my own behalf, I also thank the Fitzpatrick family and their wonderful staff for their assistance in showing me all facets of the harness racing industry and what goes into the preparation of a pacer. I thank Paul and his wife, Lyn. Incidentally, last Saturday night at the Miracle Mile barrier draw Paul was awarded the Harold Park Trainer's Premiership. It was Paul's third successive Harold Park Trainer's Premiership.
I thank their three sons, Blake, Gavin and Cameron, for their patience as they brought me up to speed. I also thank Greg Hoy and the two women in the Fitzpatrick team, Tash and Casey—I never got to know their last names—particularly Casey, who must have shown me 10 times how to put on the head gear and the hopples. Finally, after two months of training, I can now fully harness a horse. It was not merely a matter of my turning up and having a pacer waiting to be driven. The Fitzpatricks were determined that I should learn properly. Every morning I would get the horse from the paddock, groom it, saddle it, and put on the gig. Each day a different instructor—whether it be Paul, Gavin, Blake or Cameron Fitzpatrick—would take me out onto the track. After weeks of slow work, I finally got to do some fast work. After that work, I would take the horses back to the barn, wash them, and take them back to the yard. It has been very exciting, and this Friday I will find out whether all I have been taught will stand me in good stead. I know that what will be held in good stead is that charities will benefit from the Norton Plaza's sponsorship of this one-off charity event.
The primary beneficiary will be Just Enough Faith, a charity that provides food to Sydney's homeless people. It will benefit from a donation of $3,000 as Norton Plaza's charity of choice. In my electorate the Kids of Macarthur will receive $1,000. Minister McBride's charity of choice will be a charity in his electorate, and at present I am not aware what that charity is. Last Saturday night a further $2,000 was raised, thanks to the generosity of Tanya Harris of Menangle Park and Campbells Consulting. I understand this will go to the 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4679
Millennium Foundation. I thank Norton Plaza for its generosity in sponsoring a couple of politicians going around in a charity harness racing event. Hopefully it will receive some publicity from the event.
I also thank John Dumensy, the Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Harness Racing Club, for his organisation and championing of this charity event. The Minister and I only agreed to participate if a charity would benefit, and thanks to John's hard work several charities will benefit. One great side effect of the training is that both the Minister and I now have a greater understanding of the requirements of trainers, owners and drivers in harness racing clubs. If nothing else comes out of the exercise, it has been worthwhile. In response to an interjection, I point out that both of us must have a class C drivers licence and we must wear helmets and safety vests. I can assure members opposite that no betting on this race is allowed, but I have been told informally that I am the odds-on favourite.
Mr Steve Cansdell: I'll back you.
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: I thank the honourable member for Clarence for that. In conclusion, I thank the Fitzpatrick family of Cawdor—they have one of the leading harness racing stables in Australia but, more importantly, they are a wonderful family—for their help and support in my endeavours to become a good driver. I am looking forward to the race. I do not know how I will be able to eat dinner the night of the drive, which is immediately before the Miracle Mile.
ST VINCENT'S HOSPITAL, LISMORE, REHABILITATION UNIT
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.50 p.m.]: Tonight I raise a problem in the electorate of Lismore and the Northern Rivers area. I have been reluctant to raise the matter in the House because it has been progressing through various stages. I refer to the rehabilitation unit at St Vincent's Hospital in Lismore. Some weeks ago, together with the honourable member for Clarence and the honourable member for Ballina, I convened a public meeting in Lismore, which was attended by the Mayor of Ballina council, Mr Phillip Silver; the Mayor of Lismore City Council, Merv King; the Mayor of Richmond Valley Council, Charles Cox; the Mayor of Tenterfield Shire Council, Toby Smith; and the Mayor of Kyogle Council, Ernie Bennett. The meeting showed the community that we represented the whole of the region, not just Ballina or Lismore; we were talking for the region.
I convened the meeting because of concern about what was happening to the regional rehabilitation centre based at St Vincent's Hospital in Lismore. It had been indicated that the unit would be transferred from Lismore to Ballina. This is not about whether Ballina or Lismore should have the beds. Ballina needs rehabilitation beds, and it is getting them. The people of the Northern Rivers region, the mayors, and the members of Parliament are opposed to shifting the beds from Lismore to Ballina. At the meeting, at which there was a fair bit of ill feeling displayed by the North Coast Area Health Service Chief Executive, Chris Crawford, towards St Vincent's Hospital, it was announced that the unit at St Vincent's Hospital would be closed and shifted to Ballina.
Since then they have held two further meetings and rallies. Everyone supports the retention of the unit in Lismore. That is necessary because people who live west of Lismore, and as far away as Tenterfield, use this service. It would be impossible for them to travel to Ballina to access it. Furthermore, the unit in Lismore should be retained because all the necessary specialist services, together with the hydrotherapy pool, are located at the facility and are available on request. Finally, area health service representatives and St Vincent's Hospital representatives have been in negotiations over the past two or three weeks. I compliment Chris Crawford and Bob Welsh, the Chief Executive Officer of St Vincent's Hospital. Commonsense has prevailed and both organisations have been negotiating for some time.
I pay tribute to the community, which supports the retention of the rehabilitation unit in Lismore. I refer to Tony Madden, a Lismore citizen; Marshall Fittler, representing Community Watch; and Dr Doreen Bacon, whose life has been the rehabilitation service in Lismore. Dr Bacon has been referred to as a rebel doctor, but I can assure honourable members that she is not. Action has been taken because of her drive, experience and initiative. She has continually fought the system; she has continually pointed out that the decision to close the unit at St Vincent's Hospital is wrong. Nevertheless, she has not wavered at all. She has been supported by other doctors.
Recently, 110 doctors, medical specialists and other support staff signed a petition to retain the rehabilitation unit. That is unheard of; the Australian Medical Association has never had anything like it. I pay 4680 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
tribute to the mayors, Dr Chris Ingle and Rob Simon from the local MSC Council, who have been fighting to retain this unit in Lismore. I again compliment Chris Crawford and Bob Welsh. Both organisations are finally negotiating, and I hope that at the end of this week a suitable solution will be found to retain this unit in Lismore to provide a service that the people of not only Lismore but the Northern Rivers rightly deserve. I thank everyone for their support on this issue.
ANGELINA'S PORTRAIT MUSICAL
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.55 p.m.]: About a month ago I attended the world premier of a wonderful musical at Lithgow Golf Club. Angelina's Portrait was composed by two local Lithgow identities, people I have known for most of my life, Brian Wilkinson and Cill Van Der Velden. The cast consisted entirely of amateur musicians from the Lithgow area but their delivery was very professional. It was certainly a unique event. Performances over the past few weeks have been sold out; the musical has been a resounding success. I congratulate Brian Wilkinson, who was the musical genius behind this—he wrote all the music—and Cill Van Der Velden, who wrote all the lyrics. Both of them have been involved in the Lithgow community for a long time. Brian is a talented musician, and Cill is a community activist with a passion for writing mainly poetry but she turned her hand to Angelina's Portrait.
The musical is in the Shakespearean style with an Italian setting. It is the story of a young laundry girl who wants to marry the love of her life but her father wants her to marry into money. That sets the scene for the show. The principal cast were all locals—Tara Gray, Alan George, Glenda Phipps, Julie Hughan, who is a well-known local singer, Chantelle Woolmer, who had a lot of success with Lithgow High School musicals, Bruce Ryan, Mark Watchorn, a teacher at Lithgow High School, Greg Hilliard, Robyne Pytko, Louise Dean and Lyn Doherty—and they all performed magnificently. The musical score was played by the composer Brian Wilkinson on the piano, Allen Keogh, formerly of the Black Diamonds, on bass guitar, Emily Wilkinson, Brian's daughter, on strings, and Matt Ryan on drums, with Dr Mark Roebuck providing musical support on the mandolin.
The musical was inspiring because the entire production was local. The performance was extremely professional. Everyone who attended the performances enjoyed it immensely. It was a heart-warming play and everyone got into the spirit of it. Apart from the creativity of Brian Wilkinson and Cill Van Der Velden, what made the musical possible was the support from the local community, including financial sponsorship. John McCarthy from Micky Finn's Hotel in Christchurch, New Zealand, was a financial sponsor, and a number of people from the Sydney area were also involved. Local businesses such as Video Ezy, Lean and Bennett Toyota, Bill and Peter Henry of Henry's plant hire, Delta Electricity, which supports many great community projects, Bowenfels Medical Practice, Unsworth Sawmills at Wallerawang, Wallerawang Bowling Club, Prints 'n Frames of Lithgow, and Dianne and Marty Sheehan of Wallerawang made contributions in the form of sponsorship which made this musical production possible.
Martin Doherty, through his recording studio at Wallerawang, also provided support. A CD has been produced from the musical and it is selling well in the local area. Martin Doherty, Leigh Birkett and Rock Sounds Hi Fi all contributed to putting that very professional CD together. Other people such as Snow Van Der Velden and Cill van de Velden and the writer's husband, who is a very talented builder from the Lithgow area, built the props. Gordon Mudway, another local artist, did all the scenery painting, and the Wilkinson family, through Jenny, Brian's wife, handled the business side of the project. All in all, it was a wonderful event and shows what can happen in a country community when talented people get together with a desire and a vision to write a musical. That is a pretty big order. Again I pay tribute to all those people, but particularly to Brian Wilkinson and Cill Van Der Velden, who were the inspiration for this wonderful event. I am sure there is more to come from these talented people.
TUMUT DISTRICT HOSPITAL RENAL DIALYSIS SERVICES
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [6.00 p.m.]: Recently I spoke in this place about Mr and Mrs Southwood, who were required to travel to Canberra every second day to access renal dialysis services for Mrs Southwood. Up to eight people were waiting on the dialysis list for Wagga Wagga but there were not enough places or funding to enable them to be treated locally. After a long and hard-fought, and bitter, battle we gained funding for Wagga Wagga to expand the number of chairs for renal dialysis. One in every two diabetes patients who visit a general practitioner suffers from chronic kidney disease. Over the past 25 years the number of Australians being treated with dialysis or a kidney transplant has grown by more than 400 per cent. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4681
The number of kidney-failure patients entering dialysis or transplant programs increased at an average of 5.5 per cent per year over the past 10 years. It is projected to grow by some 6 per cent. The cost of chronic kidney disease in Australia is forecast to skyrocket from $1.8 billion in 2006 to $4.7 billion in 2010. The epidemic of diabetes combined with an ageing population is creating greater numbers of people with kidney failure. More than one-quarter of all patients coming to dialysis and transplantation do not see a kidney specialist until 90 days before dialysis starts. This late referral is shown to be associated with an increased mortality of 7 per cent per year compared with those referred appropriately.
As I said, I previously raised this issue about Wagga Wagga, which services the Riverina and the South West Slopes. Tonight I want to raise honourable members' awareness of the need to now extend the service to Tumut, Batlow, Adelong and Brungle. On recent visits to that area I have been made aware of the critical need for up to six patients to access renal dialysis services. I am informed that ambulances are transporting those patients to Wagga Wagga on a two-day rotational basis or they are being required to travel to Canberra to access specialist care. A satellite service needs to be established. I understand the cost per chair is approximately $25,000. Consumables cost about $45 a treatment, and staff would need some training to be able to administer dialysis in Tumut Base Hospital. I understand that costs are recurrent but that NSW Health has a renal services enhancement funding program.
By making this statement I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the desperate need of the Tumut, Adelong, Batlow and Brungle communities to access dialysis. I met with a number of people who have been very proactive in forming their own group, called the South West Slopes Dialysis Services Committee. Along with the community that group is campaigning hard to establish important renal dialysis services for the Tumut area. On 7 April 2005 the Premier quoted the following funding figures in Hansard: $163,000 for Kempsey; $600,000 for a four-chair facility at Moruya; $700,000 for Armidale; $1 million for Tweed Valley; $434,000 for a six-chair service at Griffith; $273,000 for a four-chair satellite service at Bathurst; and expansion of the Dubbo facility from six chairs to 10 chairs. Tumut does not have a facility, and the enormous cost and inconvenience of people having to travel to access these services is having a detrimental effect on their health.
When a patient is diagnosed as having to self-dialyse, they have to travel to Sydney to be taught how. I submit to the House and to NSW Health that that service needs to be delivered in Wagga Wagga so that rural people can come to Wagga Wagga and be taught how to self-dialyse, in order to negate their having to travel to Sydney and be away from their family for weeks on end. They would also avoid the gruelling trips to Sydney to access services. We are geographically isolated, and that is why I am passionately imploring the Minister for Health to ensure that these services are extended to the people of the Tumut region.
MAROUBRA ELECTORATE REGISTERED CLUBS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT EXPENDITURE SCHEME
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [6.05 p.m.]: In my inaugural speech to this House just over a year ago I said there were some wonderful registered clubs in my area. Once again I would like to reiterate the wonderful work they do. Each day as I travel throughout my electorate I have cause to reflect on the great sense of community in the Maroubra electorate and surrounds. The club movement in the area is a great contributor to that aspect of my electorate. I am proud to be the patron of several clubs in the area, including Malabar RSL Club, Yarra Bay Sailing Club, and Maroubra Bowling Club.
As mutual organisations, clubs are owned by their members and they exist primarily to service those members. However, they make a contribution to our area that goes far beyond assisting individual members. They provide service to the elderly. Many elderly people in my electorate have no family to care for them and nowhere to go. Clubs provide wonderful venues for them to meet people and get a little enjoyment out of life. Clubs also make direct contributions to certain activities in the electorate, such as sport.
For example, South Sydney Juniors Club, one of the iconic clubs not only in my area but in New South Wales, allows young people to play rugby league for free. This is a wonderful contribution not only to the young people of the electorate and surrounds at a time when childhood obesity is top of mind but also to many parents who are struggling and cannot afford the fees associated with their children playing sport. I thank the president of South Sydney Juniors, Keith McCraw, who is one of the great natural leaders of our community and who, like one of his predecessors, Henry Morris, makes a fantastic contribution to that club and to the community as a whole. 4682 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Several clubs in the area also have intraclubs. For example, Malabar RSL Club, of which I am patron, has a fishing intraclub and through Malabar Boat Owners Club it contributes to boat and maritime safety at Malabar Beach, which was formerly called Long Bay. I thank the president of Malabar RSL, Arthur Strange, and several of its directors, Mick Murray, Jim Nixon and Trevor Grant, just to name a few, for the wonderful contribution they make to the Malabar community, which really is one of the embodiments of the word "community".
The Community Development Support Expenditure [CDSE] scheme is another terrific innovation by the Carr Labor Government. It allows clubs to withhold some of the poker machine tax that would ordinarily have been payable to the Government, and apply it to local charities and community groups who have applied for CDSE funding through Randwick City Council. I expect that the CDSE scheme that is run in conjunction with Randwick City Council and clubs in our area under the excellent chairmanship of Tom Symons would be the model for CDSE schemes throughout the State. If any honourable members want to encourage their local clubs to initiate a CDSE scheme, I invite them to contact Randwick City Council. It is an exemplary scheme. Through the clubs the scheme provides financial contributions to needy organisations in the area, and assists people who are blind, disabled and elderly. Meals on Wheels and similar charities benefit greatly from CDSE contributions, as do organisations that save lives, such as surf clubs.
Two iconic surf clubs in my electorate—Maroubra surf club, under the excellent presidency of Matthew Thistlewaite, and South Maroubra surf club—ensure that Maroubra and Malabar beaches are two of the safest beaches for swimming in New South Wales. The surf clubs, through their brother club Maroubra Seals, benefit greatly from the scheme. Having referred to Maroubra Seals, I want to thank and congratulate president Alan Langford and chief executive officer Peter Read, who ensure that Maroubra Seals have an active presence at Maroubra Beach, and look after members and elderly people and troubled youth in an exemplary fashion. They constantly liaise with police to ensure that good order is kept at Maroubra Beach. I thank them for their longstanding service to the community and for their leadership with local hotels and Randwick City Council in a liquor accord. I thank each and every club for being a great heartland organisation in my electorate.
PORT MACQUARIE ARTS, CONFERENCE AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PROJECT
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [6.10 p.m.]: The Minister for Local Government has recently had his judgment called into question on issues that relate to the use of his ministerial vehicle and the payment of parking fines. His judgment has also been called into question in relation to his interference in a project being undertaken by Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, that is, a cultural centre development in Port Macquarie. Recently the honourable member for Port Macquarie asked the Minister for Local Government a dorothy dix question. In his answer the Minister said that the Department of Local Government's Promoting Better Practice review of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council in 2005 had identified major problems.
That statement was factually incorrect. The Promoting Better Practice review had nothing to do with the cultural centre project or the tender process the council is endeavouring to undertake in a realistic time frame. It is not the first time the Minister has used this place to criticise a council without allowing the council the right of reply. He has done it to Tweed Shire Council, and he is now doing it to Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. I have spoken to the general manager of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council about the attack on the council by the Minister for Local Government in this place under parliamentary privilege. I have stayed away from debating the issue with councillors because of the differing views that can occur in councils. In his response to the dorothy dix question by the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the Minister said that the section 430 inquiry into the council was in relation to a cost blow-out from $15 million to $33 million to $60 million. The council has stated clearly that that is totally incorrect.
The Minister has stated as fact in this place a malicious rumour that has been spread by some members of the community. The fact is that the revised construction cost is $25 million. The council resolved to set the cost based on a March 2005 cost plan at $25.42 million plus indexation. Escalation over the period since the cost was set is $3.799 million. Grants awaiting decisions are worth $1.942 million. I note that 36.9 per cent of the project is funded through section 94 developer contributions. A cost comparison with the Shoalhaven cultural centre project, which is currently being built, reveals that Shoalhaven's cost is $5,110 per square metre and that the Port Macquarie arts and cultural entertainment centre cost is $4,000 per square metre.
The council believes that the centre proposed for Port Macquarie will deliver a vastly superior multipurpose facility for less cost. Once constructed, the centre will be used for a multitude of purposes and 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4683
performances, including a gallery, a museum and exhibition space totalling 600 square metres, a theatre seating 620 people, a studio seating 170 people, foyer display areas, and a shop, bar and café that will cater for major events, conferences and exhibitions. All these areas have the capacity to create income far and away above the required commitment. The council has been fiscally responsible.
The terms of reference of the proposed inquiry are an insult to the professional integrity of council and its staff. They include whether the council has exercised reasonable diligence in the financial management of the Port Macquarie arts, conference and entertainment centre. The council is one of the financially better placed councils on the mid North Coast, and its processes in letting a tender for this project have been completely above board and would stand up to any form of probity.
It is also untrue that the council has gone against public opinion. A flood of letters to the council and the local paper, the Port Macquarie News, support the centre. The silent majority has come forward. They are extremely concerned about political influence in the process, which may impact negatively on the cost and create further division in the community. Part of the blow-out in the cost relates to archeologically significant evidence of early settlement at Port Macquarie. The council has appropriately factored that into the cost. Again, the Minister for Local Government has used his position to interfere for political purposes.
WOY WOY PENINSULA COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARDS
Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [6.15 p.m.]: As a member of Parliament I have had the opportunity to meet hundreds of people from all walks of life and varying backgrounds. As the member for Peats for almost 12 years I have always felt that it would be ideal if the many exceptionally good people who contribute to their communities in so many different ways could all be given a gold medal. As that is impossible, the New South Wales Government Community Service Award is one way to acknowledge constituents for their remarkable services to the community. When the Government held a Cabinet meeting in the Everglades Country Club at Woy Woy on 12 September 2006, the Premier presented two of my constituents, Cecily Prentice and Kathleen Morison, with a Community Service Award.
Cecily Prentice has resided on the Woy Woy peninsula for 48 years. Throughout that time Cecily has made a significant and completely selfless contribution to the local community. I first met Cecily several years ago through her involvement with Meals on Wheels. Cecily has held official positions on the Meals on Wheels committee and still delivers meals to less able members of our community. Cecily is an active member and a tireless fundraiser for St Luke's Anglican Church in Woy Woy. As a Justice of the Peace Cecily is very much involved in the Central Coast branch of the New South Wales Justices Association. In the past Cecily has held official positions within the association. For the past 30 years Cecily has been a tireless worker for the local Order of the Eastern Star and has held the position of secretary.
The Central Coast Historic Car Club, of which I am the proud patron, has benefited from Cecily's involvement. Cecily served as secretary for 19 years and treasurer of the club. Today Cecily remains an active member, and regularly goes on runs and participates in events to which the club is committed. The most recent event the club attended was the Oyster Festival, which was held at Ettalong Beach on 11 November. Members of the club allow their cars to be shown at many charitable events, and in that way they contribute to many local organisations. Cecily is a tireless community contributor and has not allowed age or recent poor health to diminish her efforts. I also mention that Cecily and her late husband were long-time members of the Lions Club, with Cecily clocking up 32 years of service. She was also involved in the Girl Guides Association, of which her two daughters were members.
Kathleen Morison is an outstanding young person who has made a significant contribution to the Woy Woy community from an early age. Through her dedicated involvement in Scouts Australia Kathleen has brought leadership and support to the lives of many young people. Kathleen has volunteered to work on a number of community events, including the Hunter and Coastal Corroboree in 2003, the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal in 2003-04, as a youth helper with the Blackwall Cub Pack in 2003-04,and at the twentieth Australian Jamboree in 2004. Kathleen completed the St Johns Senior First Aid Certificate in 2003, the Scouts Australia Initiative in 2003, the Scouts Australia Unit Management Course in 2004, the Scouts Australia Youth Helper Module in 2004, the Scouts Australia Venturer Scout Leadership Module in 2004, the Scouts Australia Level 2 Boat Charge Certificate in Canoeing and Kayaking, and the University of Newcastle Child Protection Training Course in 2005. 4684 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
She also achieved the highest award in Cub Scouts, the Yellow Cord, in 1997 and the highest award in Scouts, the Green Cord, in 2002. She was also a Community Olympic Torch Bearer for the Sydney 2000 Olympics at the tender age of 13. She was a first class student at Woy Woy High School in 1999-2000, at Brisbane Water Secondary College she was a school prefect in 2004, and she was presented with the Queen's Scout Award in 2005. She is currently studying for a Bachelor of Teaching/Bachelor of Health and Physical Education at the University of Newcastle. Kathleen's extensive involvement and qualifications in community-based service events despite her youth make her a very worthy recipient of the Community Service Award. I take this opportunity to congratulate both Cecily and Kathleen on being presented with the New South Wales Government Community Service Award. I wish them all the best for the future and thank them for their great contributions to our community.
KURNELL HISTORIC DRIVE CAMPAIGN
FINNEGAN LANCASTER LIFESAVING ACTION
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [6.20 p.m.]: I pay tribute to Nick Boes and the Kurnell Historic Drive Campaign, whose aim is to develop a community-based project to beautify and maintain Captain Cook Drive as a scenic tourist drive to the birthplace of modern Australia—Captain Cook's landing place at Kurnell. Honourable members might wonder why this is necessary because that is the State Government's responsibility. Unfortunately, former Premier Carr's attachment to history did not extend to ensuring that the Kurnell historic drive is maintained as it should be. Nor did it extend to providing some of his recent largess to the residents of Kurnell to ensure that the drive is properly maintained.
In recent months the roadside reserves have been particularly untidy. The council has been eradicating bitu bush, and the campaigners have been told that removing it or cleaning it up is too costly. Over the past six months, residents and visitors to Kurnell have seen the roadside dug up for sewerage works and other projects, but none of the affected areas has been restored or improved. The section near the old Abbott site is more like a dug-up cow paddock than a roadside reserve. Broken branches and uprooted trees and shrubs make the roadside look very untidy. It is not good enough, given the history of the area.
As yet there has been no word in response to an application for a grant to eradicate the weeds along the drive at the Kurnell sewerage works. Nor has there been any news about the installation of uniform gates at the entrance to the electrical pylons. This matter was discussed months ago with the parties concerned. Volunteers, not the State Government, have undertaken considerable clean-up work. Volunteers collected 16 bags of litter plus various other items. The Government should have done its share of the work and ensured that the drive is in an appropriate condition. We should all be embarrassed by the Government's lack of attention with regard to Kurnell, an area that should be a very proud part of our past. It should be properly maintained so that it can be a source of pride and inspiration for all Australians.
The other aspect of community service I wish to raise relates to the next generation. I have been speaking about the birthplace of modern Australia and I will now speak about a community service provided by a representative of the future. I refer to a Dolans Bay boy who has been credited with saving the life of a four-year-old girl who was pulled unconscious from a home swimming pool. Finnegan Lancaster was playing in a pool with a large group of children when he found a girl floating in water and dragged her to the steps. Her mother revived her using mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and she was taken by ambulance to Sutherland hospital, where she was kept overnight.
An article in The Leader states that I was contacted by Diane McInerney, the principal of St Francis de Sales School at Woolooware, where Finnegan attends kindergarten, seeking advice about awards. The girl's mother said the incident occurred during the last school holidays when about 10 children spent the day at a home pool, watched over by four mothers. This event demonstrates how quickly accidents can happen, even with more than adequate supervision. The article quotes the mother:
The message I would like to give other parents is to be extra, extra vigilant when kids are in the pool … So many little things can take your attention away. It may be something as small as someone asking for a towel.
There was no complaint about the degree of supervision. However, if it had not been for Finnegan's quick action, a tragedy would have resulted. One can take heart about the future generation. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4685
LAKE MACQUARIE CITY OPEN-CUT COALMINING
Mr JEFF HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [6.25 p.m.]: On a number of occasions this year I have spoken in the House about open-cut coalmining in the Lake Macquarie city area and about the community's strong opposition to this form of coalmining in our environmentally sensitive city. I make it clear that Lake Macquarie has a long and proud tradition of coalmining, but that has been underground coalmining. The majority of the community accepts the presence of underground mining, the hundreds of local jobs it creates and, of course, the tens of millions of dollars it has injected and continues to inject into the local economy. However, there is strong opposition to open-cut coalmining. In March and April this year I raised the community's concerns about the Awaba open-cut coalmine proposed by Centennial Coal. In May I advised the House that Centennial Coal had announced its plans to withdraw its development application for the mine. I said, however, that the fight did not stop there and that I would join with the local community to ensure we did not have to deal with yet another development application in the future.
Some 25 years ago my father, as the local member, led the community in opposition to a proposal for an open-cut coalmine in the same area. I pointed out that the campaign was successful then, and the community has again been successful in stopping the establishment of an open-cut coalmine in 2006. I also said that the land should be considered for inclusion in the Department of Environment and Conservation's Regional Conservation Plan, and that we must conserve the land to ensure that no further proposals for open-cut mining in the area are presented. I referred to the endangered species that were native to the area as another reason why it should be preserved. Then in June I was pleased to state in the House that the community had lobbied the Minister for the Environment for inclusion of the land in the draft regional conservation plan that was being put together by the Department of Environment and Conservation. In August I advised the House that the Minister for the Environment had written to me, thanking me for my representations on behalf of the community. In that letter the Minister stated:
I acknowledge your concerns and those of your constituents that a similar, inappropriate proposal may be put forward in the future…
That is an inappropriate open-cut coalmine proposal. The Minister went on to say that the Department of Environment and Conservation would formally recognise the Centennial open-cut coalmine site in the draft conservation plan. In October, when the draft conservation plan was released, I was pleased to note that the site had been identified. In fact, approximately one page of the conservation plan was devoted to the area and why it should be conserved. The plan detailed how the Department of Environment and Conservation would work to conserve the area, but it fell short of protecting the area immediately by including it in the national park estate.
On 27 October I again raised in this House the issue of open-cut coalmining, and I restated what I had said in the House on a number of previous occasions, that is, that the time had passed for open-cut coalmining in Lake Macquarie City. I pointed out that the final Lower Hunter Regional Strategy identified Lake Macquarie as an area that would accommodate up to 36,000 additional home sites and that we would be looking at an increase in population of about 60,000 or 70,000 over the next 25 years. Most of this will go to the western side of Lake Macquarie, the same area where there are potential open-cut coalmine reserves and thus the possibility of future open-cut coalmining. I said that the local environmental plan for Lake Macquarie City should be amended to preclude any new open-cut mining from all areas within Lake Macquarie City and any future extension of the existing open-cut coalmining operations in the city. There is a small open-cut mine currently located between Killingwo rth and Wakefield.
In my speech to the House on the National Park Estate (Lower Hunter Region Reservations) Bill I again voiced my opposition to open-cut coalmining, and my support for the area to be included in the national park estate, preferably as a regional park. As I pointed out, areas in Lake Macquarie have been identified as having potential for future open-cut coalmining. It is an environmentally sensitive region, and these areas are all on the western side of Lake Macquarie and currently in the Lake Macquarie electorate. Local members of Parliament have lobbied the Minister for Planning, and I once again ask him to favourably consider our request for an amendment to the Lake Macquarie environmental plan to rule out any future open-cut coalmining or the expansion of the current open-cut mine in the Lake Macquarie electorate.
HAWKESBURY ELECTORATE ROAD AND RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE
HAWKESBURY REGIONAL FOOD AND WINE SHOWCASE
BUSHFIRES AND FIREFIGHTERS
Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [6.30 p.m.]: It is with pride as the member for Hawkesbury that I pay tribute to the people of my electorate. The extraordinary pioneering spirit, the tenacity, determination 4686 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
and resolve that helped to establish the Hawkesbury as the food basket of the early colony is still clearly evident today. The early landowners faced harsh conditions, while today's farmers face different, but equally challenging, issues. In particular, there are the ongoing concerns about water or the lack of it. Despite that, Hawkesbury farmers continue to produce millions of dollars worth of quality food, as highlighted this week in Parliament House in the Hawkesbury Regional Food and Wine Showcase. I congratulate all associated with Hawkesbury Harvest and the various State Government departments and agencies that were involved in such an outstanding presentation.
The people of the Hawkesbury are proud of their commitment to best farming practices, and of being able to produce such a variety of foods in such a drought-stricken climate for such a wide variety of different people. The drought has highlighted the need for improved water security. Much of the Hawkesbury is still on tank water, and the water tank subsidy, which is available for urban areas, needs to be extended to the Hawkesbury's non-urban areas to lessen the dependence on water carters and to secure supply. I also draw to the attention of the House the urgent needs of the Hawkesbury River, which has not been properly mentioned in the Sydney Water Plan. There is another breed of pioneer in the Hawkesbury today: those in the newer residential areas, such as Kellyville, Rouse Hill and Beaumont Hills.
With increasing population comes an increasing pressure on infrastructure and, while I welcome recent infrastructure announcements, much more needs to be done. I am happy to say that since I became an Independent member of Parliament doors to Ministers have opened for the electorate like never before. I thank the Ministers. I have already held talks with Ministers, including the Minister for Planning, on the north-west rail link. Early this week it was announced that the long-awaited north-west rail line is to be brought forward by two years. I welcome that announcement, but it is still too far away. The population is already there and growing, and it just cannot wait until 2015. I also welcome the commitment to the duplication of the Richmond railway line as far as Vineyard by 2012. But that is also still far too late for the population of the Hawkesbury, who need these urgent services now.
I am pushing for more to be done sooner, so the residents of the Hawkesbury can have properly airconditioned and heated trains instead of the freezing cold services they have at the moment. I met with the Minister for Education and Training on the desperate need for a new high school at Rouse Hill. Parents are at their wits end and are pushing for construction so their children will not be forced to travel long distances to attend high school. The Minister has promised to review the situation, and I will continue to pressure the Government. I welcome the Government's commitment to the three towns sewerage scheme for Wilberforce, Glossodia and Freemans Reach. Some 30 years in the making, the scheme will provide far-reaching benefits for the local communities and I will be scrutinising its progress with a fine toothcomb.
EnergyAustralia recently announced that it will spend approximately $20 million on a new substation for the Galston, Glenorie and Arcadia areas, and Integral Energy is making improvements in the Colo Heights area. That is good news, but there is still a lot more to do to stop the blackouts and brownouts that are affecting major sections of our population. The burgeoning population of the north-west also requires adequate policing, and at the moment, despite the valiant attempts of our police force, it is not realistic to expect a rapid response from Castle Hill to Rouse Hill. We need a police presence at Rouse Hill to ensure law and order is maintained and that we have an adequate on-the-ground police presence.
Adequate road transport is the crucial lifeblood of any community. I am disappointed that the Dural intersection of New Line Road and Old Northern Road has made it onto the NRMA's black spot listing. The area, known as "The Funnel", is currently handling traffic well above its designed capability. It is affecting the viability of local businesses as well as threatening lives, and I call on the Government to widen the road and provide traffic management solutions. We also need improved hospital facilities. This week I met with Hawkesbury Hospital Community Board of Advice, which raised a number of concerns, particularly lack of nurses and mental health nurses and the need for an improved bus service to the hospital. The growing north-west sector is placing additional pressure on existing hospital facilities and the board is looking at ways of meeting those needs, and it has my full support.
I will conclude my contribution as I commenced, with a tribute. This morning a section 44 state of emergency was declared for the Hawkesbury local government area due to bushfires. Twenty-two Hawkesbury Rural Fire Service brigades have been involved in fighting the fires, or are on standby. Currently, fires pose a threat to St Albans, Mount Tomah, Bilpin and the Grose Vale areas. We owe an enormous debt to the men and women who willingly give up their time to protect life and property whenever the need arises. My vision for the Hawkesbury extends to all parts of the electorate—from Bilpin in the west to Kellyville in the east, and from 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4687
Bucketty to Dural. I know these communities and I know their issues. I look forward to continuing to serve the Hawkesbury communities and to working for the improvement of their lifestyles and facilities.
STATE PLAN
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [6.35 p.m.]: Tonight I want to talk about the State Plan and its implications for the Port Macquarie electorate. I note that a previous speaker referred to a particular project in the Port Macquarie electorate that may have relevance to the State Plan. I thought it extraordinary that another member of this Chamber would stand up on behalf of a political party and argue against a Department of Local Government section 430 inquiry into a project that is not even in his electorate. If anything, it begs the question why a member of a political party in this House would argue against a transparent inquiry into a local government project. From my point of view, it only further emphasises the need for such an inquiry. That is why I fully endorse a section 430 inquiry by the Department of Local Government into the cultural centre in Port Macquarie.
However, tonight I want to talk about the broader issues of the State Plan as it affects the Port Macquarie electorate. Whilst it is a worthy process and the plan itself is a substantial exercise—some good forums were held in the Port Macquarie electorate—I still believe the bureaucracies of Sydney do not understand the growth that is taking place on the mid North Coast and in the North Coast region in general. We are experiencing the complete opposite of what New South Wales in general is experiencing. I believe the State Plan is largely driven by issues relating to a low-growth State with some high recurrent costs and the problems associated with that equation, whereas on the mid North Coast we are experiencing the complete opposite. The mid North Coast is a high-growth area; we are seeing an enormous amount of growth and the whole sea-change and tree-change phenomenon. Being a low-cost region the area is a relatively cheap spend for government.
After Port Macquarie Hospital's decade as a privately run public hospital, it has shown itself to be the most efficient hospital per patient of any hospital in New South Wales, yet we still have to argue the case for infrastructure improvements very strongly. For example, in relation to the fourth wing at the hospital—part of the reason why the buyback, which was very welcome, took place—we now have to go in to bat very hard to try to get the Government to invest dollars in what is the most efficient hospital in New South Wales.
Likewise, we hear plenty of debate in this Chamber about trains and buses and public transport in general. But the big request that came from my table at the State Plan forums when public transport was raised was the comment, "Yes, please, we would love some public transport", because at the moment transport in the region is provided by the private sector. CountryLink and the bus network are basically outsourced services. Whilst that might not mean much to people in this Chamber, it means that people living on the mid North Coast are denied things such as the peculiarities of the benefits of pensioner travel, including the $2.50 all-day free travel, and some of the associated benefits of genuine public transport. I am not arguing necessarily for a change to full public transport in the region. I am arguing for the associated benefits that go with it, and I hope that matter is resolved by the State Plan.
Another service in the region is the women's refuge in Port Macquarie. It is held up as a model refuge of efficiency, yet at the moment it has only a month and a half of funding left. On the one hand the Government claims the refuge is a model women's refuge—and it is a leading light and regarded as one of the more efficient and better operations—yet when it comes to the crunch the refuge is denied access to funding. I hope that situation can be resolved very quickly by the Government. The State Plan is good but I hope for greater recognition as we get more into the detail of the peculiarities and the particular needs of the mid north coast and North Coast regions.
CHILDREN WITH A DISABILITY THERAPY SERVICES
Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [6.40 p.m.], by leave: Tonight I speak about concerns over the lack of services for parents of children with a disability in the Clarence Valley. I received a letter from a Mrs Katie Westbury of Grafton, who wrote:
I am the mother of two boys, Jacob who is 5 years old and has Autism, and Lucas who is 3 and has Asperger's Syndrome. I am constantly chasing up therapists and services for my boys and we are continually confronted with delays due to a shortage of therapists in the Clarence Valley. In our experience with the system over the last two and a half years now there has been no improvement in access to the therapists. The therapists are just as busy now as they were back then. 4688 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
This is not good enough. Parents that have children with special needs need as much help as we can get. We spend our lives trying to give our children a fighting chance, and the last thing we have is spare time to write letters to politicians to stand up and help us. If these politicians were in our shoes for one week they would see what we go through on a daily basis and be more eager to help.
Any parent is aware of how much work a child brings to your life. You hear people complaining about how tough and busy their lives are. They should walk in our shoes for a day and see what life can really be like.
My life revolves around taking my boys to pre-school, early intervention sessions and speech therapy (when I can get it). When I'm not running them to and from their activities (and believe me they have full weeks), I am visually preparing them for the next day. I spend what little free time I do get taking photos of people and places to make story books up for them. Our boys require story books and pictures to visually prepare them for the day ahead, so they know what to expect and what is expected from them.
In saying that though, we rarely go and do much in the community because it is just too stressful and society places so many expectations on you as a parent. That is the problem with Autism. There is no visible disability, and because of a lack of community awareness, people think my boys are just misbehaving. Just once I would love to go down the street and not be stared at or judged. My children aren't being naughty; they just have trouble processing all the noise and movement of the shops.
The government thinks that it does so much to help us families out. Well they don't. The $94.70 a fortnight you get for being a carer of someone with special needs would barely cover our fuel bill of running our children around. Let alone covering things like doctors and specialists appointments.
What the government has to realise is that we parents are at our wits ends. We have so much going on in our lives just trying to cope with the day to day needs of life, and then we have to turn around and fight for services that our children need. Statistics show that 85% of parents of a child with Autism have either been clinically depressed or are still on anti-depressants. Myself included. We as parents are exhausted, not coping and do not have the time, energy or the resources to try and fight for services that we need. And all this is before we even put our hand up to ask for respite services, and a little public awareness of our child's needs.
So this is where you need to step in Mr Cansdell. I am asking you to be a voice for the many families in the Clarence Valley, who like us, are going without services we require. In your position, you have been a prominent figure in the valley fighting for services and raising money where needed. We ask that you now stand up for parents of children with disabilities as well.
• How can the government justify only having two full-time speech therapists to service the entire Clarence valley (one working at the hospital and one with DADHC)???
• Why, when there is such an obvious need for it, has the government not put more funding money towards getting more speech, physio and occupational therapists in the Clarence valley???
• If the government can not supply enough therapists for an area, why don't they subsidise continuous access to private therapists???
• Why, when statistics show that one in one hundred Australians are affected by Autism is there not more public awareness of this disability???
If you can stand up and get answers to these questions Mr Cansdell, you will have a captured and willing audience. We parents understand the great impact we can have on our child's development. We are also painfully aware of the importance of time in carrying out the many therapeutic sessions.
Teaching our children is a race against time. Please understand that our children's success depends on our ability as parents to make every known effort possible. It is true that money is a very real issue, and poses a significant problem for many parents of autistic children.
Let's work to provide a better educational service to all children with special needs, regardless of age, severity of condition, and to all families regardless of income.
I believe this is a special challenge for both sides of Parliament to address over the next 12 months and during the next four years, whatever side of politics is in government.
Private members' statements noted.
[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.45 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (BIODIVERSITY BANKING) BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.
Consideration of amendments deferred. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4689
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (BIODIVERSITY BANKING) BILL 2006
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that, having considered the Legislative Assembly's message of 18 October 2006, it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
1. That this House agrees to the resolution in the Legislative Assembly's message of Wednesday 18 October 2006 relating to the appointment of a joint select committee to inquire into and report on the implementation of the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Act 2006, with the following amendment, in which amendment the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly is requested:
Paragraph (2). Omit the paragraph, insert instead:
(2) That the functions of the committee will be:
(a) to prepare a report that sets out suggested guidelines for the operation of the scheme during a trial period and examines options for applying the scheme to the clearing of native vegetation (within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003),
(b) to evaluate the objectives of the scheme as set out in the bill as passed by both Houses,
(c) to oversight the operation of the scheme during the two year trial period, and
(d) to report to both Houses on the operation of the trial within six months of the expiration of the trial period.
2. That the time and place for the first meeting be Thursday 23 November 2006 at 1.05 pm in the Waratah Room.
Legislative Council MEREDITH BURGMANN 22 November 2006 President
Consideration of amendment deferred.
VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Mr PAUL CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [7.33 p.m.]: As I go from this place at this time I do so with the inalienable freedom of self-acceptance. Everything I say tonight is just for the record. After all, a notable historian, E. H. Carr—not Bob—once said:
Whatever may be said of morality, political wisdom is certainly ambulatory.
I remain unconvinced that the diaries of any Australian politician, State or Federal, are worth publishing. That said, my advice to any would-be diarist is, "Always photocopy the post-it notes"! Rarely in politics do you get the opportunity to establish an objective truth. The correction on page 2 of the Daily Telegraph of 7 October 2006 was one of the few occasions. The correction stated:
The Daily Telegraph reported on September 1 that the Member for Wyong Paul Crittenden had been forced from his Seat. The Daily Telegraph accepts that the ALP desired Mr Crittenden to be its candidate for Wyong at the 2007 Election because, following his announcement not to contest the preselection in April 2006, the preselection process that had already commenced in Wyong was aborted by the ALP.
In his book, The Quest for Grace, Australian historian Manning Clark talked about his school days. He reflected on teachers and the difference in their quality. Some he refers to as life straighteners, those people who have a very measured, narrow view of life and want to contain it. Others, the minority, were what he calls life enlargers, those who love the banquet of life with a passion, challenge their students to look at the big picture and seek to share it with them. My teachers have been many, but I still continue to learn, especially from Jenny, James and Stephanie. James was four and Stephanie was two when I arrived here more than 15 years ago. Now they are adults, probably immune to the call of politics. Due to the nature of politics Jenny has been the primary caregiver of our children. Her parenting instincts have been not only invaluable but also irreproachable. We have much of which to be proud in our children. Now I can reflect on the lessons learnt from the tandem activities of raising a young family and participating in the political process. 4690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
The life-enlarging, selflessly dedicated Sisters of St Joseph at Belmont taught me the building blocks of all knowledge—to read, write and count. While I have not bothered to count too well in this place, I certainly was adept at the numbers game in order to get here. To paraphrase Robert F. Kennedy, some people see ALP branches as they are and ask "Why?" I dreamed of ALP branches as they could be and asked "Why not?" I never simply followed the traditional political path of taking the line of least resistance and going along with existing orthodoxy or, as the Australian's Mike Steketee referred to recently, the ALP's internal breeding program, in which I do not believe. I sought to build a stronger party structure, one that was more moulded to my ideas of what politics and, more importantly, public administration should be.
To all the then branch members, all those many people who joined then and since, and to all those, both young and old, who actively participated in and journeyed with me through political life, I will always be indebted. Since I became a member of this place it has been much more difficult to arrange for more members of a similar mind. I chose to "cast the dice" at my third caucus meeting on 20 August 1991 when I knowingly took on a shadow Minister over rights for mobile home residents, many of whom live in the Wyong electorate, and some of whom have been forced to relocate their homes at considerable personal expense, without justification. After a raging row during that caucus meeting that lasted over half an hour, the issue was adjourned to a special caucus meeting the following day. As a new boy in the boarding school environment of this place, that was not a wise career move. My maiden speech in this place on 27 August 1991 was on that subject.
As I have reflected over this and other decisions I knowingly took, I would not change anything. Logically, therefore, it follows that I can have no regrets. My timing was either hopelessly old fashioned or well in advance of my time. I willingly concede that I am a person with "attitude". That did not stop me suggesting to John Della Bosca that he should be the candidate for Peats at the 1995 election, following the untimely death of Tony Doyle in December 1994. I did so because I believed that the corrosive influence of subfactionalism could be minimised through that course of action. Decisions should be made according to the merits of each issue. Although that proves my failings as a human being because I got it wrong, I have sought to atone by supporting Marie Andrews ever since in preselections.
It is only people who are incapable of independent thought who confuse it with anarchy. What we learn as children influences everything we do in later life—our actions and our institutions, not the least of which is the children's playground or the adult's mystique of the "bear pit." I speak about child rearing for two reasons. Firstly, that is where we get our earliest values, and, secondly, it provides an analogy with other aspects of life, especially in this day and age when people start new careers every few years. The innocence of childhood is honesty personified. Governments play an important role in providing the services parents need, such as education and health, to parent effectively. A wise government correspondingly benefits by having able recruits to succeed each political generation and by providing safer, more educated, more dynamic communities by leading by example.
In that old value-laden phrase, "We reap as we sow". In an essay in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28-29 October 2006 Elizabeth Farrelly made some excellent points that serve to illustrate many of the issues that we as adults face today. The changes in child rearing over the past century present an object lesson in how the idea of original sin has gradually been replaced by the far more dangerous, if unarticulated, belief in original virtue. This just-add-water approach to parenting has largely replaced discipline with gratification, reason with folly. Although I have enjoyed a spirited discussion about the Matt Ridley book The Origins of Virtue with the Treasurer, Michael Costa, I remain concerned about this type of argument and its implications for a civil society. It relies too much on faith of an essentially virtuous or wise human nature to mitigate against the worst excesses of unenlightened greed.
To use an example from public life, self-regulation is not the same as self-discipline, just as deregulation does not always promote the common good. Privatisation, deregulation, public-private partnerships and corporatism have to be more than the conversion of a public good to a private benefit. The private sector equivalent of unlocking shareholder value is often only a euphemism to create growth out of nothing, eventually reducing the ordinary shareholders' stake in the company. Farrelly argued that until the end of the Second World War attitudes to infant rearing saw over-feeding as a constant danger but subsequently shifted to regarding the child's natural appetite as an adequate self-regulator. It remains for history to judge whether governments over the past two decades have, in effect, acted like spoilt children. Social commentators argue that adults have replaced duty and responsibility with the pleasure principle. Gratification of desires can take many forms, and perhaps the most dangerous are those that place short-term goals, such as individual career advancement, ahead of less glamorous and less immediate objectives as intergenerational equity. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4691
Ironically, it is the poster boy of the boomers—former American President Bill Clinton—who is now holding fundraising functions for the William J. Clinton Foundation to minimise climate change and reduce childhood obesity. Both of these are symptoms of an individualistic pursuit of self-gratification at the expense of the greater good and respect for others. Happiness is not the same as hedonism! When Dr Spock's Baby and Child-Care advised parents to "trust yourself" and enjoy, he forgot to add "within the boundaries". As those babies, the boomers, have come to maturity, parenting manuals typically advise that babies be fed on demand and never smacked or criticised but cajoled and somehow educated. I would like to see Michael Egan try to reason with a three-year-old. To carry the analogy further, I again quote from Farrelly:
Parents have been left holding the carrot but no stick. The parents' primary job, it has been argued, is to build the child's self-esteem rather than to teach the skills that might earn or justify such esteem. This has helped to build a society in which near-perpetual pleasure is both the norm and the expectation, where pain is an affront and to have an unsatisfied yearning seems almost an offence against nature.
The critics say that children should not be made to do anything they do not like, that making them have a midday nap is a form of child abuse. This has led to a society where adults think that the only crime is getting caught. In our haste not to somehow damage our children with negative emotions we pretend that negative emotions of any kind are unnatural and always avoidable. And so we watch our children become little monsters—we talk tough love and limit setting. We adore the super nanny—if we can afford one—and we want to restore the idea of discipline. But—and this is a hard one for parents who increasingly have more and more demands placed upon them to work and consume and raise perfect children—on every street corner, every beach, every bus, we see parents acting as their children's servants, letting the kids take the lead. And then we complain.
But as adults we seem to have adopted the same concepts like the positive press release as some kind of goal in itself, like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. This is folly. The real objective, whether for baby, child, youth or adult, is not getting what you think you want but in somehow getting it right—what is needed as well as what is wanted. The baby needs sleep, the child needs discipline, the youth needs more than just a Higher School Certificate [HSC] mark, and we need good government, not just government. Government has become process obsessed rather than outcome focussed. An HSC parent recently remarked that no HSC mark, a number, could ever describe a person in all their complexity but that, rather, if you were a kind person with a generous heart, a sense of humour and a loyal friend, you still would be after the HSC. That is the mark of a real team player. As adults, these qualities plus integrity, self-motivation and self-discipline should be prerequisites for good government. Yet, as Barbara Tuchman points out in her book The March of Folly, time and again government is shattered by folly or perversity. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Misgovernment can be the result of tyranny or oppression, excessive ambition, incompetence or decadence, and folly or perversity. Folly in government is like folly in child rearing. It is the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest, welfare and advantage of the constituency, and sooner or later we will live to regret it. I have always believed that my role is to serve the constituency; the constituency does not exist to serve the party. Folly is alienating the constituency. Folly is posturing. Folly is bluffing. Folly is having a good press release rather than a coherent policy. Folly is arrogance and hubris. Folly is like running out of water. If, in politics, happiness is issue management, postponing indefinitely any hint of criticism, then it does not work.
We always knew that having what you want did not make you likeable. Now we know that it does not make you happy, either. What is more, in politics there is a pretty good chance that it will not last anyway. Ministerial success is as ephemeral as an iceblock on a hot summer's day. Many people argue that western happiness has declined precisely in tandem with the rise of affluence and the decline of personal reflection. Time for thinking has been replaced with shopping, and the retreat replaced with the health farm. When the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins, starts to write about happiness it is because increasingly people have started to question the values that have dominated the past two decades. There is a great deal spoken about the concept of values. The word is used to justify many points of view and frequently to avoid any real action.
But we should not be blithe or blasé about the essential importance of a values-based life, in politics or anything else, although the human condition is such that one will not always live up to the standards one sets oneself. Values are more than mere ephemeral fashions. The core values of our society are more basic and widely shared than the inane pop psychology of post-modern deconstructionism would argue. I speak of integrity, verity, felicity, sincerity, truth, honour, duty, responsibility, consistency and self-discipline. Sometimes immediate self-interest, in politics as much as elsewhere in life, does not encourage these values, but 4692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
nearly always the long-term verdict shows that it would be best to make the hard decisions and face reality when first required, rather than spin and gloss over issues.
We need to rely on inner values instead of externally provided routines and regimes. In questions of honour, the imposition of rules and regulations, audits and special investigations is a poor replacement for the type of moral integrity and self-discipline that stems from true values. One of the most important things these values give people is the ability to say no and the ability to take no for an answer. That means that, just as the six-year-old who wants to hear that the next cupcake is good for him must be disappointed, so, too, the decision maker who wants to believe the irrational and overoptimistic estimates of traffic flows, rates of return or rainfall forecasts. Here in this House we need to reflect more on the truth of what we do and less on what we want other people to think is the truth. This is enlightened self-interest.
Not all unhappiness, disillusionment and depression are within the individual's control or understanding. The drought has inflicted depression in rural communities, and organisations such as Beyond Blue are reporting that it is far worse than mere unhappiness and shows how interdependent human beings really are. Nevertheless, the constant disappointment of affluence-based expectations that are not fulfilled makes many people unhappy. In reality, not everyone wants a harbour view or a house in Mosman, but more and more obscene corporate salaries, more property developments and land deals are reported in order to satisfy those questionable desires, all of which lead to unrealisable aspirations and expectations.
Even for the very wealthy the polarisation of society is counterproductive. It is not enlightened self-interest. How happy we are as individuals is largely a function of how happy and productive our relationships are, not what we own. The common wealth is by definition more than just a person's profit and loss statement. Despite increases in personal wealth and consumption, people are unhappy. The pursuit of enlightened self-interest—happiness—must be more than just goods and services.
In "Affluenza", Tim Flannery struck a chord in Australia—a chord which is only now beginning to grow louder as people worry not just about having water, power and clean air for themselves but even more so about the future we bequeath to our children and their children. In government, as in other areas of life, it is clear that this is a paradox of happiness—the things we think will make us happy do not, and that makes us want them all the more, until the painstakingly crafted edifice comes tumbling down. What governments in Australia need now are more of what Manning Clark called "life enlargers"— people who allow us to see the big picture and the challenges ahead, especially for State governments. The hallucination of economic growth through property development is no substitute for a vision of this State's future.
Last week the High Court decision on the Federal WorkChoices legislation clearly expanded the Commonwealth's corporations power under the Australian constitution. It is ironic that for the past 20 years State Government functions have increasingly been organised as "corporations" under the State-owned Corporations Act 1989 and known as Government trading enterprises [GTEs]. Therefore, many of the GTEs could just as easily have their policy focus determined by the Commonwealth or even regional government. Of course, I am sure the officials of the Cabinet office and the Premier's Department would have advised Cabinet of this contingency. In reflecting on nearly 16 years in this place I am reminded of the poem Little Gidding of T. S. Eliot, who said: "And in the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time." Now is an appropriate time to leave this House.
Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [7.53 p.m.]: It does not seem so long ago that I stood here to make a maiden speech, and I can measure that distance by looking at our daughter. She was born on the campaign trail, so I see in her both a measure of progress and the promise of achievements to come. She gave me an earful tonight about why she was not allowed to come this evening. In my maiden speech I set out the objectives of the people of the Southern Highlands. Eleven years on, the performance of the Iemma Government against that list exemplifies what must change in March next year.
We are only just nearing a resolution on the future of Bowral Public School. Wombeyan Caves Road remains a major challenge. Many of our schools, especially Bowral and Moss Vale high schools, need major new facilities. Our hospital is still without a clear plan, and our rail system offers fewer services than it used to. While Labor told us we did not need an additional high school between Bowral and Picton, the independent schools saw the reality and filled the need—giving Labor apologists a new target for unjustifiable criticism of private choice. We were told four years ago we could not possibly use our groundwater, yet now Labor is preparing to suck it dry. This is the price we all pay for 12 years of Labor squandering the best national economic prosperity most of us have ever seen. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4693
But there are great things to celebrate too—largely the result of indomitable community will overcoming a State Government that wanted to put us on the backburner. Hill Top and Colo Vale school upgrades, Mittagong school library, public ophthalmology, and getting police relieved of hours of prisoner escort duties. With my friend Joanna Gash, we worked with Professor Gerard Sutton and the council to secure a campus of Wollongong University at Moss Vale—something I am particularly proud of. But my greatest satisfaction is in the things that will never be seen—helping families with a disabled child, sorting out a bus route, helping a farmer solve a water problem, getting an older person into a care facility. Many of us go into this job determined to fix the budget and achieve world peace—but what many people want is just help to get justice in the face of a government that has forgotten why it is there.
I have learnt that it is not just our job to represent; we must also know when to lead on issues that people know are difficult and look to others to map a path to a solution. Stem cell research—public, private or NGO? Water, waste management, drug policy, energy solutions. This requires us to think smarter about the outcomes we want, and to have the courage to go beyond just resorting to process or calling for more dollars. These issues inform the parallel responsibility we all have in policy-making and thinking. How can it be done better? Would it pass the Southern Highlands test—and I can tell you that is a pretty tough test!
I was drawn to State politics because it is all about services and delivery. The State Government should be the service provider of last resort, where the market cannot or will not do the job properly; and the role of government is primarily to defend and uphold public value and standards on behalf of taxpayers and citizens. This place should not be a venue for the conduct of personal agendas and personality cults—although each of us legitimately brings, I hope, a clear idea of acceptable standards of personal and community conduct, framed by our faith or ethics, reflecting the people who elect us. People want us to make good decisions about finance, making the trains run on time, fixing our roads, making health care accessible, houses affordable and jobs available, real choices in public schooling, with public schools being the first choice, not the last resort.
So in the absence of these solutions during 12 years of Labor in the most prosperous years and highest State revenues of living memory, I focused on offering policy alternatives to my Liberal-Nationals colleagues and my community with the experience of the people of the Southern Highlands providing the input and imperative for change.
I take some satisfaction that despite the fact that Bob Carr pilloried my 2000 discussion paper "Liberating the Environment", proposals in it such as domestic rainwater tanks, large-scale urban water recycling, and private conservation incentives are now mainstream community demands to government— without the world ending, as Bob Carr's shameless political expediency threatened it would. I was also pleased that my submission on behalf of the Coalition to the Federal Government's public liability reform inquiry contributed to finding more sensible solutions to a tort law system that had departed from commonsense and the reasonable expectation of personal responsibility, which was, and sadly still is, limiting the expression of the Australian spirit in a way which our Anzac forefathers would be horrified to see today. We would not have had a CWA, show societies, or even the Man from Snowy River under current occupational health and safety and public liability laws.
Reinstating personal responsibility, along with restoring home affordability and the Australian values that come with home ownership—having "skin in the game" so to speak in where you live—are important foundations for liberalism. Most stable, happy and productive liberal democracies are those that embrace home ownership, mums and dads with children, a stake in their own future through investment and enterprise—which is why I have worked hard on policies to kick start housing affordability and choice in where people live. It makes for good Australians. Ensuring the best possible opportunity for home ownership, along with choice in schooling, job opportunities, the chance to own a business, hire other people and help those who need a hand, all need a strong and disciplined approach to the finances of our State so we can make New South Wales a competitive place in which to live and work.
Strong economic management is the cornerstone of all successful Liberal governments. This part of our brand was regrettably neglected between 1995 and 2002 when we allowed Bob Carr to falsely press his claim to this competence. It was not hard for Labor when Nick Greiner, John Fahey and John Howard's Federal Government were doing all the heavy lifting and letting New South Wales surf the wave. The fact that New South Wales now has the lowest growth, highest unemployment, lowest building starts since post-World War II, worst home affordability and a $700 million deficit shows that Labor can never be trusted on economic management. 4694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
John Brogden and I were elected in the same by-election and sat together on the backbench. We talked about reforming New South Wales, and became very close friends. When he became leader in 2002 we shared a determination to refocus the New South Wales Liberals on economic management and to ensure all our policies were integrated in a performance-based, outcomes-focused framework, responsible and sensible, and made best use of taxpayers' money and the hard work and innovation of the New South Wales people, using as light a hand as possible.
Being given the chance as shadow Minister for the Reform of Government and shadow Treasurer to effectively get a new piece of paper and redesign a reformed New South Wales government was a privilege and pleasure for which I am very grateful. There were some open sceptics at the time, but I knew the best reply was to get results. It was some of the hardest work under the most impossible expectations, but it was deeply rewarding. I had help and collaboration from Adam Boyton, Peter Fraser, Steve Murphy, Lance Northey, Ross Thornton, Jen Havilah, Brad Burden, Peter Shmigel, Matt Croker, shadow Cabinet colleagues, and other valued mentors to prepare the solid groundwork to underpin a future Liberal government reform agenda. This was an exciting time being part of one of the best political staff teams I have had the fortune to work with.
We produced policy papers on tax reform, economic management, performance benchmarking and structural reform. Long overdue Federal-State reform and a new approach to the Commonwealth Grants Commission methodology was tackled in a discussion paper called "Practical Federalism". We searched Australian and overseas models for innovative ways for the New South Wales Government to source and deliver the services people need, not just to serve the Government's convenience. Events of September 2005 were shattering on many levels for many people, myself among them. It hit my closest political friendship in the heart. The friendship has yet to fully recover, and will need time. I wish John and Lucy the very best in future and thank John for pushing me to achieve things I never knew I could achieve—although I would never have admitted it at the time!
Peter Debnam became our leader in circumstances not of his making. I thank him for his ability to take us forward with purpose as a competitive and strong alternative in March. He has put his own stamp on the reform agenda and has asked me to continue in my Reform of Government role. I know that the people of New South Wales will be well-served by a man who wants to see New South Wales regain its economic credentials, and taxpayers and citizens get the services and value they deserve. I look forward to seeing Peter Debnam and Andrew Stoner leading a Coalition government on that side of the Chamber after March. I will admit to a brief moment of regret that I will not be there with them—at least for the first day!
To the Liberal Party—which is the only reason I have had the privilege to represent the Southern Highlands—I am grateful. We are nothing without the Liberals in our local branches who have put us here, help us get re-elected, and look to us to influence public policy with Liberal ideals. To John Fahey, Chris McDiven, Geoff Selig, Tony Nutt, Roger Worner, the late Dr Lionel Wilson, Jo Vink, Ros Buick, Margaret Hogg, Margaret Emery, Alix Turner and many others, thank you for your trust in me. One of the purest expressions of local liberalism was a branch meeting at Mittagong one night when we debated certain events in our party and resolved that the Liberal Party belonged to no-one, no group or personality—it was the equal property and responsibility of every individual in it.
There is equally no room for cults of personality or moral agenda in a party whose key principles include individual freedom and free enterprise, a light-handed government, encouraging private sector initiative, low tax, and a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice are maintained. I believe that no political party in modern Australia should try to tell others what should or should not be done with their bodies or in their bedrooms as private consenting citizens. They are questions between individuals and God. In other words, getting the economy and our environment on a strong footing in order to give people the ability to choose and prosper and looking after those who need a hand should be the business of State government and the policy objective of State parties.
I commend everyone to revisit a speech given in this place by Nick Greiner in 1984. Nick Greiner is more widely recognised for his achievements in economic management and public sector reform. He took New South Wales successfully through the Keating recession and the Wran-Unsworth debt legacy, and led crucial reform on Federal-State relations and within State enterprises. His 1984 speech reminds us of our responsibilities to approach controversial social issues—in this case homosexual law reform, but it could easily have been any number of other so-called moral issues—with a clear understanding of the meaning of liberalism.
The speech, which was co-authored by Gary Sturgess, led us back to John Stuart Mill's 1868 essay "On Liberty" in which Mill said, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4695
a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". It is not about debating the merits of the thing. Strongly held views on matters will never be reconciled. It is about drawing a line on the limits of interference by government in people's lives. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Upholding freedom of choice, with consent where appropriate, brings with it the requirement for personal responsibility. Neither needs the heavy hand of government or regulation to succeed in a nation of resourceful and fair-minded people. Beyond the economy, we need a conceptual reference point for tackling social and controversial issues. Nick Greiner is in the gallery tonight, and I acknowledge him and Gary Sturgess as beacons of liberalism across the spectrum. They are the two people who have given me the greatest purpose and inspiration in this place.
The bear pit is not conducive to friendships across party lines. There are a handful of those opposite whom I count as genuine human beings, but to name them would sink their careers. To one of Labor's long-retired icons, I am grateful to know that on both sides of Parliament there are individuals who understand that neither side prospers if we do not from time to time recognise quality people who promote a competitive tension and improve the quality of the institution. The Liberal Party must ensure it recruits, among others, the next generation of public policy thinkers.
My past and present Bowral staff—Keri Ahmet, Lexie Neale and Rebecca Reid—have made a real difference to the lives of many local people who sought their caring help and to me, who they supported with great professionalism and friendship. To Leeah Salmon, who has shared my office space and has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help me in so many ways, thank you. Most particularly I thank Martin Laverty, who is one of the most talented and genuine of men. I thank special friends in the Coalition, including John Ryan, who, more than anyone, was responsible for my success in 1996 and who is a man of grace and real goodness; our wonder Whip, Daryl Maguire, who counts and finds tractor parts with equal skill; and Andrew Tink, who will be missed for his incisive intellect. The National Party produces special people. John Sharp is one of the finest who, together with Victoria, is a great Coalitionist, a great advocate for our region and a great friend.
There are many things I probably wish I had done differently or better. On many occasions I wish I had had the guts to take a leaf out of the Hon. Tom Lewis's manual to get things fixed faster. Lieutenants of the 2/3 Commandos are fairly uncompromising in their objectives, and there was many a time when Tom Lewis found it hard to separate being a member of Parliament from being a soldier. He wondered why I could not do the same. That is why he calls me "second best". You can guess who he thinks is first.
It was a precious experience for me to spend a week with Tom driving around his beloved Western Division, complete with a reception hosted by the member for Murray-Darling, and showing me the spectacular national parks he created. Complete with a portable cocktail bar in the back seat of the Subaru, we would suddenly career off the beaten track as Tom would remember a mate who lived "somewhere over there". Forty years after he had last seen him, not only would we find the farmhouse he last saw in 1965; the farmer would recognise Tom and say, "G'day." That is how it was done in the old days, and Tom cannot understand why I cannot just stop trains in their tracks, dig the dam, open the road, or put up the traffic lights, as he would have.
Tom's instincts are right. We need a lot more action, and less talk and spin. We need more can-do, not can't and don't. We are thoroughly over-governed. I believe over the next 10 years we need to rethink our multiple tiers of government and we need to sunset old and tired instruments of governance. The next generation of representatives must tackle the chaos of multiple State and Territory jurisdictions and Federal-State duplications. Parliament is a unique environment, and I thank the parliamentary staff, clerks, attendants, security, building services, the wonderful people in IT, Hansard, and the Library staff for their constant service. I also thank the media for their coverage of important issues.
Finally and most importantly, to Lachlan and to Unity—who was born into this life—my love and thanks. You have let me do this job because you believed it was worth doing, and now it is your turn. You will no longer need the fridge magnets to remember what I look like. I got at least one thing wrong in my maiden speech when I said that Unity would be paying for Gough Whitlam's economic vandalism well into her adulthood. Thanks to John Howard, that debt is now gone, before she turned 11, with all the opportunities that go with that for her generation.
To the wonderful people of the Southern Highlands, I owe my greatest thanks for trusting me to be their voice in this place, to take up their problems, and to do my best to support our area, in good times and 4696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
tough times. The good times have been a sheer delight, and the tough times, especially times of tragedy and bushfire, have made us stronger. I am proud to have been able to represent such a wonderful community in a beautiful area, and I look forward to continuing those relationships in a new capacity in my new life after March, when I have no doubt we can look forward to a Debnam-Stoner Government making the tough but necessary decisions to give New South Wales the future it deserves.
Mr KIM YEADON (Granville) [8.13 p.m.]: As honourable members will be aware, I am not contesting the next election. So this will probably be my last speech in this place. I have always regarded it as a great honour and privilege to be sent to this place. All of us who are sent are very privileged to be here. First and foremost, I thank the people of Granville for conferring that great privilege upon me. We have seen many changes in the electorate over the years—most of them for the better. I apologise for anything I did not do for my constituents, but I certainly always tried my best. I also thank the members of the Labor Party in the Granville electorate for their friendship, support and assistance over the years. There are simply too many of them to acknowledge individually, but I express my deep appreciation to them for their support and hard work. I particularly thank Laurie Ferguson for his support. Without it, I would not have come to this place. I also thank my electorate officers, James David and Wayne Smith, who particularly during the period that I was a Minister held the fort in Granville. They have been with me for many years. I thank them very much for their assistance and support.
I also had the great honour of being a Minister in a Labor Government for eight years. I thank the members of the Labor caucus for conferring that privilege upon me. I have always taken the view that only a small number of us come to this place, so it is incumbent upon us to do the best job we can and to take advantage of the opportunity that is provided by implementing policy. As a Minister I had an opportunity to be involved in many exciting and, indeed, challenging policy initiatives. Whatever contribution I may have made in those areas, it was certainly not done alone. You can only get great things done with the assistance of many fine people, both supporters and adversaries. We do not appreciate the adversaries at the time, but as time goes on we realise that they, too, made a major contribution.
I will spend this time acknowledging some of the wonderful people who have travelled with me on a great experience. One of the things I am most proud of is the implementation of the Government's forestry policy during our first term in office. It allowed for the creation of historic and unprecedented conservation areas in the State, it modernised the New South Wales timber industry and it brought peace between the forestry industry and conservationists with regard to our native forests. Prior to the implementation of that policy there was great conflict, even to the point of people assaulting each other in the forests. Yes, people will still argue about aspects of the policy and say that it could have gone further or done more. However, by any measure I think it was a great success.
One of the reasons for that success is that the policy was developed through negotiation with all the parties involved, so it had real substance. It reflected the real issues confronting the native forest industry. Bob Carr gave me the opportunity to negotiate the policy on behalf the then Opposition in the lead-up to the 1995 election. I thank him for that opportunity. It was a long and difficult task. In fact, the final policy negotiations took place on the tenth floor of this place with the timber union representatives in one room and the environmentalists—of which there were many—in another room. Allan Hansell—who worked for Bob Carr, the then Leader of the Opposition—and I were constantly running back and forth between the parties in a tortuous effort to achieve a resolution.
On the final night we talked late into the evening. I vividly remember Allan and I driving to the middle of Sydney to pick up numerous boxes of pizza to feed all the parties to ensure they did not run off without agreeing to a policy. I very much want to acknowledge Allan Hansell's role in the development of that policy and its later implementation. He and Steve Lyndon—who also worked in the Leader of the Opposition's office—came up with the fantastic idea of accessing money from the environmental funds. That ensured we had the money to implement the policy.
I particularly acknowledge Gavin Hillier—the then secretary of the New South Wales timber union— for his fantastic contribution to that reform agenda. New South Wales owes him a great debt. He had the foresight, the understanding and the courage to take his members forward in very difficult times for his union and its members. Without his contribution, the reform agenda would not have happened. Gavin is a very eccentric fellow, but once you get through the eccentricities, underneath lies a beautiful man. His efforts ensured that the workers, and therefore the businesses they worked for—the two are inextricably linked—were not thrown on the scrap heap. 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4697
The key aspect of the policy that ensured its success was the fact that it was negotiated by all parties involved and that everyone had a place in the sun. No-one was written off. Other people involved in the policy that I want to acknowledge include Penny Wong—now a Labor Senator—who was then with the timber workers union; Kelly Livingston, who later played a major role with the union in implementing the policy; and Joanne Atkins, who was also with the union. There were many conservationists. In fact, the tenth floor should have been named the "thirteenth floor". Anyone who has seen the movie about parallel universes will understand that reference. There seemed to be a variety of universes, because each environmentalist would have his or her particular penchant and area of expertise, and we had to deal with all of them. The people who played a leading role in those negotiations included Peter Prinaes, Dailan Pugh and Jeff Angel.
I want to acknowledge Col Dorber from the Forest Products Association and his members, who also played a major role in the implementation of the policy. Those who know Col Dorber will be aware that he is a man of his own eccentricities, but I came to have great regard for him by the time we had implemented the policy. I acknowledge all of the people at State Forests who were involved in the process, particularly Bob Smith and David Ridley; all the officers from all of the departments that were involved in the implementation of the policy; and those on the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council [RACAC] and its various transformations, led by Rex Bowen—we had a huge array of acronyms at that time. They all made a terrific contribution as they got down into bunkers at various times and thrashed out the final boundaries of what was to be conserved and what was to be kept for the timber industry.
People in my office who made a major contribution over time were Hernan Pintos-Lopez, who later became my chief of staff and worked on many aspects of policy with me, including information technology [IT]—I fondly remember Hernan—and, of course, Peter Payne, who worked with me for a considerable period of time, had his beginnings with State Forests. I particularly want to mention my fellow Ministers who were involved in that policy, Pam Allan and Craig Knowles, and other members, such as Bryce Gaudry, who made a fine contribution. David Humphries of the Sydney Morning Herald dubbed Craig, Pam and me "the three amigos" at that time. I might say that he also said we would never be successful in implementing the policy, and one of the best things we did was prove him wrong. While we certainly started out as three amigos, it is one of the downsides of politics that it puts strain on relationships, and it certainly put a great strain on our relationships, particularly between Pam Allan and me, together with other things that happened. I am happy to say that time does heal wounds and I am again very fond of Pam Allan and will always remember her and Craig during that period.
Native vegetation reform was another major policy that I had the pleasure to be involved with—if I can call it that, because it was very controversial. I want to say immediately that it was not a ban on native vegetation clearing; it introduced a framework in which people had to make application to clear native vegetation. Yes, they may not always have been successful but it certainly was not a ban. It was necessary for the policy on native vegetation to be implemented 10 years ago and still it is being worked through and attempts are being made to finally resolve it, even now. That shows how contentious the legislation was and many people paid a high price for the implementation of the policy.
Bob Smith from Land and Water Conservation in particular paid a very high price politically for his involvement. I was of the view then and remain of the view now that, apart from regrowth and invasive species, whether they be native or exotic, there is really only marginal land left to clear in this State. Our forebears did a fantastic job of going across the State of New South Wales and clearing it for agricultural purposes. I therefore think that clearing that occurs on a broad scale, other than in those areas that I previously mentioned, comes at almost an unacceptable cost to not only habitat but carbon emissions and so forth in this world of global warming.
One person in my office who worked principally on that policy was Natalie Meyenn. I cannot be too effusive in my praise for the public servants who were attached to the Soil Conservation Service and later came together in the Department of Land and Water Conservation when we came to office in 1995. I pay tribute to my media officers—Julie Lewis, my first media officer, and Frier Bentley, who came in after her—for working with me on many issues, particularly native vegetation clearing. We got a horrible hiding in some areas of the media. I was never great with the media, but my media officers managed to get me through pretty well unscathed. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Water reform was another major area of policy implementation, another vital and controversial reform area. Again, it was one that had to be commenced, and was, by me. It is ongoing and becomes more important every day, particularly in light of the water situation we face in this State. I thank all the people from the former 4698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2006
Water Resources Department, who were part of the Department of Land and Water Conservation, and Sally Gaven from my office. But in particular I want to pay a great tribute to Jeanette Evans, my chief of staff. She was my chief of staff for a long period, but I think her finest hour was in negotiating the passage through the upper House of the 1997 water reform legislation. I thank Jeanette sincerely for that and for the considerable contribution she made. She was my electorate officer and chief of staff when I was first elected as member for Granville, and was one of my greatest supporters for many years.
I had the privilege of being the State's first Information Technology Minister, and probably the last by the look of things, because the title has disappeared! That was back in the heady days of the rise of the so-called "dot.coms". There was a lot of hyperbole around at that time but there is no doubt that information technology is one of the three great enabling technologies of the modern industrial era, along with mechanisation and electricity. It will continue to have an extraordinary influence and effect on our lives as we move through the twenty-first century. That will probably be more likely for politicians than for most others in dealing with the changes that are occurring in mass media, the use of the Internet and so forth—both using it as a communication tool and ultimately in regulating its use.
We assisted departments to go online, and we delivered a new way of providing government services in respect of such thing as registering a vehicle online, the establishment of community technology centres throughout the State, and dealing with the Y2K issue. We can all laugh about it now but it was real then, folks, let me tell you. People I want to thank for guidance at that time include John Ridge and Dennis Furini and their colleagues from the Australian Computer Society and the Australian Information Industry Association. The department was small when we got kicking on that, and it was headed by Warwick Watkins, who did a great job, together with his colleagues Robert Wheeler and Tony Gates. Alastair Walton in my office also did a great job of spinning the framework and the media for information technology.
I also had the privilege of being the first Minister for Western Sydney. I still recall the words of former Deputy Premier Jack Ferguson, who said that those in the east and the north of this city regard the people of Western Sydney as the hewers of their wood and the carters of their water. I had that brought home to me when I was Minister for Western Sydney. But we had a unique opportunity to work with the communities and businesses of Western Sydney, and did a great job of collaborating between government and businesses in spreading information technology, business benchmarking, and, of course, the creation of the Western Sydney Industry Awards. A lot of that work was done by the Office of Western Sydney, led by Margaret Ryan and her team, and particularly by Don Munro. I thank all of those wonderful people.
Another great reform agenda that I am extremely proud of is the Electricity Retailer Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. As far as I can ascertain it was the first true multilateral cap and trade scheme in the world when it commenced in January 2003. There had been bilateral trades prior to that time but no straight multilateral cap and trade schemes. It certainly preceded the European Carbon Trading Scheme. A lot of the preliminary work that allowed us to move to that scheme had been done by the people at State Forests in determining how to assess and account for carbon sequestration—people such as Tony O'Hara and David Brand. David is now one of the world's leading experts in sequestering forests and has gone on to great success in that area. That allowed us to do things like the Tokyo Electric Power Company bilateral deal, which was a forerunner to the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme.
I thank very much Leisl Baumgartner, who was my chief of staff in the latter part of my period as a Minister. She is a woman of formidable intellect and possesses great organising ability. She played a leading role in developing the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, and she can be very proud of her contribution to it. I thank Kathy Ridge from the conservation movement. I have always regarded Kathy as a person of great integrity, and she had a major input into the scheme also. I also thank Danny Price and his team at Frontier Economics, who did the economic modelling and allowed us to get it through the Treasury boffins who were scared that the world was going to end if we introduced the scheme. I thank Warwick Ponder, who started with State Forests and was with me for many years and was my chief media officer in the latter stages. I thank Warwick for his great loyalty, friendship and contribution. I thank also Aaron Ross, who worked on media; Jill Bateman, my personal assistant right through that period; and David Halliday, Louisa Moore and Julia Finn.
Most importantly, I conclude by thanking my greatest supporter, my partner Jennifer Dixon. Jennifer is truly a wonderful woman: a very strong woman and a woman of great intellect who is always very stimulating. She provided me with enormous emotional refuge during very difficult times. She is a fantastic organiser and she was my campaign director for all of my campaigns, other than the first one, which was organised by Rodney Cavalier, although she was heavily involved in that as well. She supported me in every aspect of my career. She 22 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4699
is a feminist and a fabulous nurturer. In the days when I was a Minister she single-handedly raised our three wonderful children, Alice, Max and Jack. One of the things I am looking forward to most when I leave this place is her companionship in the years ahead.
I thank all of the staff of the Parliament for their assistance over the years. They do a fantastic job— committees, security, everybody. I particularly thank the staff of the committee I chaired over the past four years, the ICAC Committee: Ian Faulks, Jim Jefferis, Annette Phelps and Millie Yeoh. Finally, I thank all honourable members in this place for their camaraderie and friendship throughout the time I have been here.
Mr Peter Black: Comradeship.
Mr KIM YEADON: Their comradeship and their support. Politics is a difficult business and strains relations but, hopefully, at the end of the day the passage of time allows us all to put that aside and just remember the great experience that we all invariably get from coming into this place. I thank you very much indeed.
The House adjourned at 8.33 p.m. until Thursday 23 November 2006 at 10.00 a.m.