27696
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday 11 November 2010
______
The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
REMEMBRANCE DAY
The SPEAKER: Members are reminded that today is Remembrance Day and at 11.00 a.m. the House will observe one minute's silence as a mark of respect.
ELECTION FUNDING AND DISCLOSURES AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with an amendment.
Consideration of Legislative Council's amendment set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (NON-OPERATIVE AWARDS) BILL 2010
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Paul Lynch.
Agreement in Principle
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Energy, Minister for Public Sector Reform, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [10.03 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The amendment to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 before this House is intended to ensure that significant private sector awards in the New South Wales industrial relations system are not rescinded. This will be achieved by creating a new category of awards to be known as "non-operative awards". The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission will be given the power to declare an award to be non-operative if it is satisfied that the award does not have current application to any employer or employee. The amendment will ensure also that the commission continues to maintain non-operative awards by applying State Wage Case decisions to their minimum rates of pay. It is expected that non-operative awards will be varied to reflect national decisions made from time to time by Fair Work Australia.
In appropriate circumstances, the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission will apply these decisions to non-operative awards in the New South Wales system. Preventing the rescission of these awards is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, these awards play a benchmark role in the New South Wales industrial relations system and are the repository of many years of arbitral history. Secondly, the ongoing role of New South Wales awards needs to be considered, along with many other issues in consultation with the industrial parties, in a wide-ranging review of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. Since private sector industrial relations matters have been referred to the Commonwealth, the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission clearly operates in a very different environment than it did previously.
Through legislation enacted by both the Commonwealth and New South Wales parliaments in December 2009, this State joined the national industrial relations system on 1 January 2010. While the New
11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27697
South Wales Industrial Relations Act no longer has any relevant application to national system employers and employees, it does, of course, continue to provide the framework for the conduct of industrial relations in the State public sector and the local government sector. Nevertheless, the principal effect of referral is the removal of most private sector employers and employees from the New South Wales jurisdiction. That said, there are still numbers of employees working in New South Wales who have their terms and conditions determined by State awards. These include those who work in the public and local government sectors and those who are deemed employees under schedule 1 to the Industrial Relations Act.
Notwithstanding their reduced application in a post-referral environment, the New South Wales Government believes current State common rule industry and occupational awards continue to play an important role. In fact, these industrial instruments have played, and should continue to play, an important benchmarking role within the New South Wales jurisdiction. Of course, this benchmarking role is particularly important to awards with continuing application and, accordingly, the continued existence of these awards has a wider public interest role. By means of background to this bill, it should be noted that section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act requires the commission to review each award at least once every three years. The purpose of each such review is to modernise and consolidate awards and at the same time rescind obsolete awards.
In a 1998 decision before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to determine general principles for the section 19 review process, the commission noted that an obsolete award means there are no employees or employers under a particular award, the award is not a counterpart to a Federal award and there is no New South Wales enterprise agreement in force in the industry or occupations covered by the award. Sections 17 and 20 of the Act also provide for the possible rescission of awards outside the formal section review process. As previously alluded to, the upcoming review of awards under section 19 of the Act will take place in a different legislative context to that of previous reviews. Accordingly, the New South Wales Government has concerns that significant private sector common rule awards may be rescinded if there are not specific amendments to the current provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.
As it stands, the new national industrial relations system is less than 12 month old, having commenced on 1 January 2010 on referral of industrial relations powers by all States, except Western Australia. The full implications of both the operation of the national system, as well as how the New South Wales system is to operate in the medium term, are yet to unfold. As such, the New South Wales Government believes that a cautious approach to the existing features of the New South Wales industrial relations system is required. For this reason, and because of the benchmark role of common rule industry and occupational awards, the New South Wales Government believes that it is both necessary and appropriate to preserve and maintain these awards.
The bill begins by setting up a new category of awards called "non-operative awards" in section 4, Dictionary of the Industrial Relations Act. Awards in this category are New South Wales awards that do not have any current application to any employer or employee. In practical terms, these are intended to be New South Wales common rule industry and occupational awards, which, as a result of the referral of powers, no longer apply to any employer or any employee. It will be the job of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to determine whether a particular award is non-operative, either in the process of reviewing an award via section 19 or in the process of consolidating awards under section 20. The bill amends both of these Sections accordingly.
The bill also provides the commission with a broad power to declare an award to be non-operative by means of new section 20A. Section 20A also provides the commission with the power to declare that an award has ceased to be non-operative. The bill then amends section 17 of the Act to prohibit variation or rescission of non-operative awards. The bill makes one important exception to this prohibition, that is, to permit the variation of non-operative awards to give effect to any flow-on of national decisions, such as national minimum wage reviews, or to give effect to State decisions made by the commission under section 52. Under the terms of the bill, such variations will be made directly by the Industrial Relations Commission. Unions and employer groups will not be forced to waste valuable resources by making time-consuming applications. The commission will be required to keep a register of non-operative awards, and that register will be published on the New South Wales Industrial Relations website. Finally, in order to prevent any action to thwart the intention of this bill, the bill will be made effective from the date of introduction. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 27698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
WATER MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Phillip Costa.
Agreement in Principle
Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly—Minister for Water, and Minister for Corrective Services) [10.10 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
Water management is a key policy issue of our times. It is critical to the environment, the economy and our very lives. The challenges of severe drought and, paradoxically, lately floods, the uncertainty of climate change, population growth and the ever-rising infrastructure costs have made the sustainable and forward-thinking management of water a key priority for the Government. We have risen to these challenges and forged a sound public policy framework within which the proper management of water can be assured. The Water Management Amendment Bill 2010 builds on that framework by implementing reforms that have been developed in consultation with stakeholders. I acknowledge their contribution and support for the reforms. The primary feature of the bill is that it modernises the governance arrangements for shared water supply infrastructure. I shall dwell at some length on this. I will then discuss how the bill enables appropriate trade in specific purpose licences and facilitates government investment in environmental water. Finally, I shall make mention of some miscellaneous refinements such as finetuning the offence provisions.
In modernising the governance framework for the sharing of water supply infrastructure, the bill recognises the diversity of private statutory bodies that have developed over time to address issues such as installation, maintenance and operation of such infrastructure. The bill seeks to retain the flexibility that these bodies need while providing the legislative bedrock to allow them to impose necessary rates and charges, make decisions and determinations, provide rights to enter land, deal with drought and so on. There are two key elements to the modernisation reforms: cutting red tape and providing flexibility for the private infrastructure bodies; and enhancing the powers that these bodies need.
The bill cuts red tape by applying a consistent and simpler structure to bodies that exercise water supply or drainage functions, namely, private irrigation boards, private drainage boards and private water trusts. The current governance arrangements for these bodies are unnecessarily prescriptive, highly complex and inconsistent with recent Commonwealth legislative reforms. The bill renames these bodies "private water corporations" and consolidates their functions into a single governance structure. It is important to emphasise a couple of things about the changes. First, the legal status of the current irrigation boards, drainage boards and trusts will be unchanged. They will operate in the same areas, own the same assets, have the same directors or trustees until their next election and be the same legal entity as before. Second, the provisions relate only to internal governance. While the private water corporation or trust will have the power to take water and to go onto land and construct works, it will still need to hold water licences and approvals required under the legislation to perform those functions.
The Government recognises that irrigation boards and trusts are highly variable bodies. The boards and some irrigation trusts are large bodies, in some cases with hundreds of members, water entitlements of up to 80,000 megalitres and hundreds of kilometres of works such as channels and pipes. Conversely, many of the bore trusts supply water for stock and domestic purposes and have significantly smaller water entitlements and far fewer members. This means that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. For this reason, the reforms take a three-tiered approach. At the top level the Act sets the broad framework within which the irrigation and drainage functions are undertaken. At the middle level the regulations will enable the Minister to impose requirements, where necessary, to provide fundamental safeguards for members and customers of schemes.
It is intended that the regulations will set benchmarks that must be met by the organisation's rules. It is not intended that the regulations will be highly detailed. To give one example, it is anticipated that the regulations will provide a framework for the conduct of elections. At the lower level the rules of each body will define the relationship between the members and the corporation or trust. These rules will be under the control of the scheme and its members and can be changed without amendments to the regulations or proclamations by the Governor. However, to ensure that there are safeguards for members, the rules will need to comply with the requirements of the regulations. This is similar to the constitution of an association under the Associations Incorporation Act. It is a more flexible version of the by-laws that can currently be made by private irrigation boards. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27699
The second aspect of the modernisation reforms is that the powers available to water managers have been enhanced. The intention is to get Government out of the way and give the people who operate the infrastructure and know the business the flexibility and powers they need. There are two key parts to this: enabling irrigation operators to comply with the Commonwealth market rules and improving the framework for management of water supply works. New Commonwealth market rules require irrigation infrastructure operators to allow part of the group's water entitlement to be transformed into an individually held water licence on application by a member if that individual wishes to trade their individual entitlement.
This bill gives the schemes the power to transform entitlements as follows: First, it allows members to apply to the corporation or trust to have their member's water entitlement determined. This entitlement is the share of the group entitlement that is available to the member. It does not include water such as conveyance water that is required to deliver the supply to a member, but is not available for use by the member. This should not place an undue burden on either private irrigation districts or trusts. Even where there are currently no formal arrangements as to water shares, there generally have been informal arrangements about water sharing in place. Second, the water supply scheme is required to determine only the individual member's entitlement in relation to irrigation water. There is no right to have the member's share of stock and domestic water determined, but the scheme can do so if it wishes. If the member does not agree with the determination, they can lodge an appeal with the Land and Environment Court.
Third, once an entitlement is determined the private water corporation or trust can apply under the trade provisions of the Water Management Act 2000 to have part of the group licence subdivided and transferred to the member. The Act does not require the schemes to apply for transformation and does not govern the terms on which transformation occurs. If a member has concerns about refusal to transform or the terms on which transformation has taken place, this is a matter for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and not something that the New South Wales Government regulates. Lastly, the bill gives the corporations and trusts clear powers to impose termination and delivery fees in relation to members who have elected to transform their entitlement.
The fees are essential to ensuring the ongoing viability of the schemes. The bill does not prescribe what fee can be imposed; they are determined by the Commonwealth rules. The bill also improves the framework for the management of water supply works. The bill gives the schemes much greater flexibility to amend and update their water supply works plan without any need for government intervention. The water supply works plan is a document that defines the works and land that the corporation or trust manages. As the works plans are important documents, it is intended that the regulations will require a scheme to enable any member or person whose property is affected to view the works plan during business hours.
The Government recognises that many of the private irrigation districts and trusts have been operating for a long time. We are not going to burden the schemes with a requirement to go out and survey the hundreds of kilometres of supply channels and pipes that they administer to produce a works plan. Instead, the savings and transitional regulations will deem all works that are currently used by the irrigation board or trust to deliver water to be part of the works plan. A key feature of the works plan is that it will continue to apply, even if a former member has transformed their entitlements and terminated their water delivery rights. This is critical to ensure that a member selling their share does not prevent ongoing use and maintenance of channels or other water supply infrastructure that exist on their land. Failure to ensure this could result in outlying members becoming landlocked.
The final point to make in relation to the modernisation of the governance framework is that the bill will enable certain provisions to be commenced immediately while further work is done on the broader governance reforms. The reforms are significant and the Government will not commence every aspect of them until there are supports in place for the irrigation districts and trusts to ensure a seamless transition. There has been consultation with these groups and general support for the amendments. Following passage of the bill, further consultation with stakeholders will occur about transitional issues and additional support that can be provided by the New South Wales Office of Water, such as fact sheets and model rules. As further work will be undertaken to ensure a smooth transition, schedule 1 to the bill has been drafted to enable members of irrigation districts and trusts to commence transformation in the absence of the broader governance reforms. This means that it could be commenced at an earlier date.
The second component is enabling trade in special purpose access licences [SPALs]. The second key feature of the bill is that it opens up opportunities to trade specific purpose access licences. Special purpose access licences include water access licences held by local water utilities for the purpose of town water supply, 27700 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
major utilities for water supply and electricity generation, and by farmers for the purpose of domestic and stock use. Currently the trade in special purpose access licences is highly restricted. Most types of trade are prohibited, which means that there is little or no incentive for licence holders to improve their water efficiency and use water wisely. By opening up opportunities to trade, these amendments allow licence holders to consider means by which they can make efficiencies and create savings. I can confirm that these opportunities to make efficiencies and create savings are voluntary only. No-one will be under any obligation or compulsion to do so.
Licence holders can then trade these savings on the water market, enabling this water to be available to other users. Of course there will be safeguards to prevent abuse. Local water utilities and major utilities will need to establish scientifically and astringently that they will achieve the savings that they forecast. They will be required to do so through drought management plans or integrated water cycle management plans, which will be scrutinised before being approved by the Minister. This requirement provides an incentive for such utilities to undertake better water planning. In addition, such utilities will not be allowed to permanently trade water. Trades will be allowed only for defined terms of, for example, three to five years under what will be known as term transfers. They will not be open-ended. These protections will ensure that the security of water supplied by such utilities will not be endangered.
Another safeguard is that such utilities will not be allowed to use their inactive entitlements to supplement the water they have traded. This will prevent double dipping and a potential for growth of such use as a result of the trade. Inactive entitlements are those portions of an entitlement that are not used by the licence holder. For example, a town may have an entitlement that is divided into 40 per cent used, and 60 per cent inactive. If it can find efficiencies within the 40 per cent, say of 10 per cent, it may trade a proportion of that 10 per cent. However, the inactive 60 per cent will not be able to be used for the term of the trade.
In relation to domestic and stock licence holders, no requirement for drought management plans will be imposed. Instead, farmers will decide for themselves, based on their own needs, how much of their stock water they wish to trade. Trade of domestic and stock licences will be allowed on a permanent basis. However, the farmer's water use will be required to be metered. In addition, a portion of the licence will be required to be retained for domestic use.
The bill does not affect basic landholder rights. However, a person will be able to trade their stock and domestic licence only if they agree not to exercise basic landholder rights for stock and domestic water. This is a basic precaution to ensure people do not double dip, and, in doing so, reduce the water that is available to other users. Impacts on other water users also could arise if the holder of a stock and domestic licence trades an inactive part of the licence and keeps taking the same volume of water, thereby triggering a growth in use of the resource. To prevent that, it is proposed that a proportion of water must be committed to the environment to ensure that there are no inappropriate environmental or third party impacts caused by such trades. This proportion will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and implemented by regulation. A final point to make is that while this measure is locally important in opening up trade, total domestic and stock entitlement generally is only a small percentage of total valley entitlement.
The bill also facilitates the investment by the Commonwealth and other government bodies in environmental water recovery programs. The amending provisions will enable a licence for environmental purposes to be granted to the Commonwealth environmental water holder, or a State when it is necessary to give effect to agreements. Any licence granted to the State will be part of the licensed environmental water regime. This safeguard ensures that water secured by these licences will be used for environmental purposes. These provisions are intended to facilitate investment in infrastructure projects. Such projects generate water efficiencies in our rivers and groundwater sources, which ultimately result in substantial and lasting returns of water to the environment and secure real improvements in river health. But to secure investment in these projects we need to be able to create licences that embody these water savings. The licences will also offset the impacts of extraction reductions that will be implemented in the Commonwealth's proposed Basin Plan.
The investment that will flow to these projects in the Murray-Darling Basin will also provide a much-needed economic boost to our rural communities at the same time as providing water for the environment. New accounting rules will also ensure that this environmental water is properly accounted for and will not adversely impact on the existing entitlements of users. This is simply a sensible and logical way of ensuring that all water is properly accounted for and that the amendments are consistent with the arrangements under the Commonwealth's proposed Basin Plan.
I conclude by making mention of a few refinements to existing offence provisions of the Act. These include closing loopholes in the current tier one offences, which target the deliberate, negligent or reckless theft 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27701
of water or meter tampering; clarifying the current position that mining companies must hold a water access licence for water taken both directly and incidentally as a result of the mining operations; and improving the operation of the offence provision concerning faulty water meters, which allows greater flexibility for a water user with a faulty meter to take water if they reported that their meter is not working and kept appropriate records as set out in the regulations. This is about ensuring security of the system and protecting users as well.
These reforms build on the strong foundation set by the New South Wales Government and will stand us in good stead to address looming challenges. The reforms respond to issues such as the new Commonwealth market rules, the proposed Commonwealth Basin Plan and reduced water availability that may arise from drought and climate change into the future; they help regional communities to participate in trade in water without breaching Commonwealth laws; they facilitate greater investment in water for the environment; and they strengthen the regulatory tools we have in place to ensure that the water market works to the benefit of all—farms and communities as well as the environment.
Over the coming months the Commonwealth Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be developing the Basin Plan for the Murray-Darling. I assure the House that the New South Wales Government will continue to advocate strongly on behalf of all stakeholders, including regional communities, to ensure that the final reforms are a balanced package of providing additional water for the environment and maintaining agricultural production and our rural communities, in keeping with the philosophy of good governance that the New South Wales Government has lived by. New South Wales leads the way in Murray-Darling Basin reform through measures such as having the largest and most open water-trading market, sharing 90 per cent of water used in New South Wales through statutory water-sharing plans, and proactively reducing entitlements in six groundwater systems. The reform package proposed in the Water Management Amendment Bill 2010 builds upon our achievements in reform to date. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Malcolm Kerr and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ENVIRONMENTAL UPGRADE AGREEMENTS) BILL 2010
Bill introduced on motion by Mr Frank Sartor.
Agreement in Principle
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [10.34 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
Improving energy efficiency in the building sector offers the most cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reduction opportunities of any sector in the economy. That is why I am introducing the Local Government Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Bill 2010 as a climate change measure. However, improving energy efficiency in the building sector also makes good economic sense. Even if it did not reduce one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions this bill should be supported. The bill will directly help reduce the impact of growing power demand on our electricity network and the impact on power prices. I acknowledge the support and assistance I have received from the Minister for Local Government and I thank her and her department for their contribution to this legislation.
A recent report by the policy research body ClimateWorks using McKinsey and Company data found that investing in energy efficiency projects in commercial buildings would deliver a total potential benefit to the New South Wales economy of more than $560 million each year, and that rather than costing money to reduce carbon, each tonne of carbon reduced would be equivalent to a $100 benefit. However, these potential savings opportunities in commercial buildings are not being implemented at anywhere near the scale that the financial analysis shows they should be.
There are two major barriers to action and this bill provides a path through each. The first barrier is access to capital. Currently, building owners may be able to obtain a loan of around three years duration for an energy efficiency upgrade. This will allow the owner to implement some small to medium-sized projects, such as a lighting upgrade. But this type of loan is too short and potentially too small to implement larger projects which deliver the biggest savings. Unlocking the full energy efficiency potential in large buildings requires investment in more comprehensive measures, including upgrades to air conditioning, heating and ventilation, lighting, and building management systems. 27702 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Whilst the projects will vary, with some taking longer to implement, some having high upfront cost and others having longer payback periods, the projects that we want to see implemented are the ones that will lead to the greatest net energy and bill savings and environmental benefit. This bill enables the establishment of an innovative financing mechanism—environmental upgrade agreements—to assist building owners to gain access to commercial finance, potentially at lower cost and certainly at the scale and in the time frames needed to progress cost effective environmental upgrade works. The bill amends the Local Government Act to enable local councils to enter voluntarily into environmental upgrade agreements with a building owner and a finance provider to upgrade a building's environmental performance.
Under the agreement, the lender provides funds to the owner, who then upgrades the building. The owner then makes regular loan repayments to the local council in the form of a special rate or charge. Once the repayment has been received by the council, the council forwards it to the lender to repay the debt. The environmental upgrade agreement will specify what works are to be carried out, the amount of money to be provided in total and the repayment arrangements. Participation is completely voluntary. No building owner, council or lender would be required to participate. Officers of my department have, however, already received strong indications of support and interest from representatives of the property sector, the banks and leading local councils.
Buildings last for a long time but owners can come and go. Energy efficiency upgrades may be up to 10-year projects, which is longer than many businesses' usual investment horizons. Because the loan becomes a charge fixed to the land—which is very secure—rather than to the building owner's business, longer-term loans at lower interest rates can be provided. This brings me to the second barrier to energy efficiency that the bill will overcome. This is known in the industry as the split incentive between landlords and tenants. In leased properties the building owner makes the decisions about implementing energy efficiency upgrades, but the tenants would often receive the most benefits through lower power bills. Because the tenant pays the power bill there is little incentive for building owners to invest.
Environmental upgrade agreements can overcome this because most leases provide for proportional pass-through of local council rates and charges. In most agreements under this bill instead of paying a large power bill the tenant will pay for a smaller power bill and a contribution to repaying the costs of the upgrade works. Once the upgrade cost is repaid, the tenant will experience an ongoing benefit in the form of lower outgoings. The bill provides an important protection for tenants. It requires that no tenant can be required to pay more than they would had the agreement not been put in place, unless otherwise agreed by the tenant and the building owner. This ensures that tenants will not be disadvantaged as a result of environmental upgrade agreements. Overcoming the split incentive will, however, improve cash flow and return on investment for the building owner, which is also attractive to the lenders and will further support longer loan periods.
Tenants will benefit from the reduced electricity bills from energy efficiency upgrades that otherwise would have been unlikely to happen. The combination of the above benefits means that the finance provider can potentially offer building retrofit finance at a lower cost and with longer terms than other loans, enabling bigger projects with greater savings to be undertaken. As I want to emphasise, participation in environmental upgrade agreements by property owners, lending institutions and local councils is completely voluntary. Interested councils will be able to opt in to enable the use of the agreements within their area. It is expected that this will be of most interest to urban councils with large stocks of commercial or large multi-unit residential buildings within their area.
The bill allows councils that decide to participate to recover their administrative costs through a service charge on the participating building owner. Importantly, councils will not be liable for repayments in the event that a building owner does not make required repayments. If building owners do not make their repayments councils are required to make best endeavours on behalf of lenders to recover unpaid moneys, utilising the range of recovery options that is already available to councils in the Act. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, in consultation with local government and other stakeholders, will develop guidelines for the operation of the environmental upgrade agreements. This will include specific information on the calculation and recovery of contributions by tenants, arrangements for reporting on progress of agreements, prerequisites for councils to participate, template agreements and other procedures required for use.
In addition to the environmental benefits, this mechanism will help building owners and tenants reduce their electricity bills. The overall reduction in demand for electricity that will result from these upgrades will benefit the whole community. The commercial property sector in New South Wales consumes around 16,000 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, and this continues to grow. The growth in energy use has primarily resulted from growth in total square meters of commercial building space, growth in use of computing and other 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27703
office equipment, changed behaviours, such as extended shopping hours, and increased service levels, such as greater use of air conditioning, lighting and electronic equipment of all kinds. Increased demand for electricity is one of the main drivers of recent price rises for electricity in New South Wales.
Electricity network infrastructure needs to be augmented to meet this increasing demand, pushing up prices. Thus, measures like the environmental upgrade agreements provided for in this bill that have the potential to significantly reduce demand for electricity will benefit the whole community, as a reduction in demand is ultimately a saving for all electricity consumers. The introduction of this bill is timely. On 1 November this year the Commonwealth Government's Commercial Building Disclosure Program commenced. Under the program, owners of office space of 2,000 square metres or more will be required to obtain and disclose an up-to-date National Australian Built Environment Rating System [NABERS] energy efficiency rating to their prospective buyers or tenants. NABERS is a national building rating tool developed by the New South Wales Government.
The purpose is to provide buyers and tenants with information on the energy performance of a building so that operating costs can be considered in purchasing or leasing decisions. By increasing awareness of the energy performance of buildings, this program is expected to help drive the market for greener buildings. Building owners with low energy performance ratings will be competing for tenants and buyers with buildings that perform better and are therefore cheaper to occupy. More buildings than ever will have a NABERS energy rating as a result of the new Commonwealth program. It follows that more buildings than ever will be interested in taking action to improve their energy performance. The establishment of environmental upgrade agreements will enable the owners of these buildings to take more action sooner to reduce their energy consumption.
The measure is doubly timely because the Commonwealth Government intends to commence additional tax benefits for building owners who upgrade their building's environmental performance from 1 July 2011. This proposal has been developed in consultation with the Local Government and Shires Associations and representatives of key local councils with large areas of commercial property, the property industry and banks with an interest in funding energy efficiency projects in commercial buildings. The consultations have been very constructive and have produced a bill with a workable and practical approach which balances the range of stakeholder interests. I have been advised that two banks have indicated support. The National Australia Bank indicated that this approach will assist the commercial sector unlock the market barriers that have traditionally held back investment in building retrofits.
One estimate for the sector is that new investment in the New South Wales property sector could exceed $2 billion. This measure was initially developed as part of the Government's ongoing efforts to promote the uptake of energy efficiency. However, this model can also be used for other kinds of environmental upgrades for buildings. As a result the bill defines "environmental upgrade works" as works to improve the energy, water or environmental efficiency or sustainability of a building. The bill also enables bodies corporate of large strata-titled residential buildings to participate if they so desire. The New South Wales Government leads the nation in its energy efficiency programs, with our $150-million, five-year strategy and our Energy Savings scheme with a legislated electricity consumption reduction target which will reach 4 per cent in 2014.
This new measure will build on this by specifically addressing the split incentive and access to finance barriers in commercial buildings. With this new legislation, New South Wales can look forward to substantial new investment in upgrading existing large buildings. This will generate significant new employment and activity in the construction sector over the next five years, substantial improvements in the economic performance of the State, reduced occupancy costs for tenants and reduced pressure on power bills for all customers over the next five to 10 years. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
COURT SUPPRESSION AND NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS BILL 2010
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 29 October 2010.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [10.45 a.m.]: In the absence of the member for Epping, I lead for the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals in debate on the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 27704 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
2010, which we do not oppose. The object of the bill is to confer on courts the power to make suppression orders which prohibit or restrict the disclosure of information and non-publication orders which prohibit or restrict the publication of information in civil or criminal proceedings. The bill authorises the making of these orders for the purpose of preventing or restricting the publication or other disclosure of the identity of a party or witness to proceedings and their associates, or of evidence or information about evidence given in proceedings.
The bill specifies the grounds on which such an order can be made, and it repeals certain provisions of other laws that confer powers on courts to make suppression and non-publication orders. The bill follows the passage through this House earlier this year of the Court Information Act 2010. This bill has its origins in the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's 2003 review of the law of contempt by publication. As stated by Chief Justice Spigelman in the case of John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of NSW, 2004 61NSWLR 344:
It is well established that the principle of open justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the system of justice in Australia. The conduct of proceedings in public … is an essential quality of an Australian court of justice. There is no inherent power of the court to exclude the public.
There are, however, cases where the interests of justice require either that the public or the media should be excluded from the proceedings or that the identity of parties or witnesses be suppressed, or that an order needs to be made prohibiting the media from publishing certain material relating to the hearing. This bill seeks to deal with those situations and to balance the competing interests of open justice and individual privacy. I refer to the bill in more detail. Clause 3 deals with the definitions in the bill. "Court" means the Supreme Court, the Land and Environment Court, the Industrial Court, the District Court, the Local Court, the Children's Court or any other court or tribunal or a person or body having power to act judicially and prescribed by the regulations as a court for the purpose of the Act. "Information" includes any document.
"News media organisation" means a commercial enterprise that engages in the business of broadcasting or publishing news or a public broadcasting service that engages in the dissemination of news through a public news medium. These two definitions are consistent with the Court Information Act 2010. A "suppression order" is a general order that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information by publication or otherwise. A "non-publication order" is a more specific order that prohibits or restricts the publication of information but that does not otherwise prohibit or restrict the disclosure of information. "Party to proceedings" includes the complainant or victim, or alleged victim, in criminal proceedings and, in relation to proceedings that have concluded, means a person who was a party to the proceedings before the proceedings concluded.
"Proceedings" means civil or criminal proceedings. "Publish" means to disseminate or provide access to the public or a section of the public by any means including by, firstly, publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other written publication; secondly, broadcast by radio or television; thirdly, public exhibition; or, fourthly, broadcast or publication by means of the internet. Clause 6 deals with safeguarding public interest in open justice. In deciding whether to make a suppression order or non-publication order, a court must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.
Clause 7 provides legislative sanction to make orders. A court may, by making a suppression order or non-publication order on grounds permitted by this legislation, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of information tending to reveal the identity of or otherwise concerning any party to or witness in proceedings before the court or any person who is related to or otherwise associated with any party to or witness in proceedings before the court, or information that comprises evidence or information about evidence, given in proceedings before the court.
Clause 8 establishes the grounds for making an order. A court may make a suppression order or non-publication order on one or more of the following grounds: The order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national or international security; the order is necessary to protect the safety of any person; the order is necessary to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in criminal proceedings involving an offence of a sexual nature, including an act of indecency; and it is otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made, and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice. A suppression order or non-publication order must specify the ground or grounds on which the order is made.
Clause 9 sets out the procedure for making an order. Clause 10 deals with the making of interim orders. Clause 11 sets out where an order applies. In this day and age of the internet it is often necessary to deal with 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27705
instances where publication is not limited to one jurisdiction. Clause 12 deals with duration of orders; clause 13 applies to review of orders; clause 14 relates to appeals; clause 15 provides for exception for court officials; clause 16 deals with contravention of an order; and clause 17 deals with proceedings for offences. New South Wales is the first State to introduce what is hoped to be uniform court suppression and non-publication legislation. Uniform laws will bring conformity to the various State and Territory jurisdictions. This bill addresses the need for the laws and regulations governing suppression and non-publication orders to be harmonised and for all media outlets to have access to the information in them to avoid inadvertent breaches. The Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Barry Collier, has informed this House that the Director of Public Prosecutions strongly supports this bill. The director stated:
I indicate that I strongly support the introduction of this legislation that confers power on NSW Courts to regulate and restrict persons who are not parties to proceedings in the publication of evidence in and information arising out of criminal proceedings.
The bill appears to me to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of open justice, the proper administration of justice, and the human rights of all concerned.
That was very well articulated by the member for Miranda.
Mr Barry Collier: I thank the member for Terrigal. It has only taken 12 years for him to get to this point.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I acknowledge that interjection. There are no significant arguments against this bill and the following interest groups have been consulted: the NSW Law Society, the Bar Association, Director of Public Prosecutions, Legal Aid and the Australian Press Council. No submissions have been received to date. Accordingly, the Opposition does not oppose this bill.
Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.55 a.m.]: I support the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010. This bill is a further illustration of the Keneally Government's commitment to the principles of open justice and to improving public access to appropriate court information to better understand what takes place in New South Wales courtrooms. The bill follows the passage earlier this year of the Court Information Act 2010, which established a statutory framework for access to documents and other court information held by New South Wales courts in connection with criminal and civil proceedings. When it introduced the Court Information Bill, the Government indicated that it would introduce this bill as the second stage of that process.
The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill provides in clause 7 that a court may prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure information tending to reveal the identity or otherwise concerning any party to or witness in proceedings before the court, including any person who is related to or associated with that person. Further, a court may prohibit or restrict publication or disclosure of information that comprises evidence or information about evidence given in proceedings. Clause 8 then sets out the grounds on which an order may be made by the court as follows:
(1) A court may make a suppression order or non-publication order on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice,
(b) the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national or international security,
(c) the order is necessary to protect the safety of any person,
(d) the order is necessary to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in criminal proceedings involving an offence of a sexual nature (including an act of indecency),
(e) it is otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the bill will replace section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provided that a court may make an order in relation to any information tending to reveal the identity of any party to or witness in proceedings if it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to secure the proper administration of justice in the proceedings.
The Parliamentary Secretary also said that the bill will replace section 292 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provided that a court may prevent publication of evidence in proceedings against a person for a 27706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
prescribed sexual offence, and section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provided that the court may suppress publication of all or part of the evidence given before the court that is necessary to protect the safety and welfare of any protected confider. The ground regarding the order being necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice accords with the formulation recommended by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission review of the law of contempt by publication.
The addition of the ground regarding preventing prejudice to the interest of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national or international security was considered important by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General working group and was supported by Attorneys-General nationally. The addition of the ground that it is otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made and that the public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice was also considered necessary by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General working group to enable courts to consider applications for orders in relation to a broad range of circumstances that do not necessarily fit within the other grounds. However, the wording of the provision makes it abundantly clear that the public interest in open justice is to remain a primary consideration, which is very important, and that an order should not be made even if it would spare victims distress or protect public decency or morality unless the interest in protecting those victims or decency or morality significantly outweighs public interest in open justice.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Government recognises that in order for these provisions to be effective across Australia all States and Territories must adopt the same model. If New South Wales were to part from the other States and Territories on the agreed grounds for making an order, that would undermine the national effectiveness of the legislation. Of course, that is very important. Further, the Government had to be careful to ensure that the courts retain their power to make suppression and non-publication orders and to ensure that they are able to restrict access to court information and that the protections that are currently offered to vulnerable persons, such as victims in sexual assault cases and children involved in proceedings, are not watered down. In that regard it should be remembered that the ultimate decision as to whether a suppression or non-publication order should be granted should still be at the discretion of the court. The Government trusts that this legislation will assist the judiciary in reaching a fair and balanced decision in each case.
[Business interrupted.]
REMEMBRANCE DAY
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr David Campbell): Order! It being 11 o'clock, I ask that members and officers stand in silence for one minute in remembrance of those who made the supreme sacrifice.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.
COURT SUPPRESSION AND NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS BILL 2010
Agreement in Principle
[Business resumed.]
Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.01 a.m.]: The member for Miranda and the member for Terrigal, who led for the Opposition, said the Director of Public Prosecutions was very supportive. I will not read the remarks as they are already in Hansard. The Government takes this opportunity to thank the judiciary, the courts, the Law Society of New South Wales, Legal Aid New South Wales, the Victims Advisory Board, the NSW Ombudsman, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the NSW Police Force, the Department of Human Services as well as peak media organisations such as Australia's Right to Know Coalition and the Australian Press Council, which contributed to the development of the bill.
Access to court information is a very complex area of law and a judgement has to be made between balancing the best parts of open justice and making sure that victims and individual privacy are protected. It has not always been possible to accommodate the concerns and views of every stakeholder. One has to make sure that most, but not all, people involved in a court case will be protected, particularly in relation to the media, the right to give information and the right to privacy. We are confident that we have the balance right in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27707
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.02 a.m.]: It is interesting that the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010 comes before this House on 11 November. Having just observed one minute's silence in remembrance of the fallen, we have been reminded today that the tradition of a fair trial was one of the reasons that people went to two world wars, to protect the freedoms that we take for granted today. It was that sacrifice in two world wars that ensured that we are able to live in a free and just society. A just society would normally involve court cases that are open to public exhibition—all members of the public are entitled to enter the court room and observe proceedings—and that is one of the most powerful incentives to ensure a justice system is free from any tyranny. Furthermore, those proceedings can be reported by the media. In the current election campaign the Victorian Government is promising that it will allow court proceedings to be transmitted on the internet at the discretion of judges.
Open proceedings ensure that citizens are dealt with in a just and fair way. However, we live in a world with competing interests and that is no longer quite so simplistic in relation to the justice system. We have international terrorism, organised crime and a greater awareness that so often it is the victim that can be on trial rather than the accused, particularly in sexual cases. Therefore, the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010 has been introduced. As I have said, open justice is one of the foundations of our society, so it is important to look at restrictions on that open justice. Clause 8 sets out the grounds on which the court may make an order and states:
… to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
That can occur when the identities of witnesses are disclosed and organised crime and terrorism can take advantage of that disclosure. The clause also states:
… to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national or international security,
… to protect the safety of any person,
… to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in criminal proceedings involving an offence of a sexual nature (including an act of indecency),
… it is otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made— so there is a catch-22 situation—
and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice.
It is up to the court to make a determination on those competing interests. The Opposition is indebted to the Legislation Review Digest that is produced by this Parliament as a result of a great deal of hard work. I think the member for Miranda is a former chairman of the Legislation Review Committee and it is good that that body takes its task extremely seriously in relation to this matter, because we all have limited time in this place and we want to ensure that we have as much information as is available. That information is also available to the public. I have often been critical of legislation that is introduced in this House without allowing sufficient time for stakeholders to address it. For example, last night the farcical situation occurred in relation to food labelling when the Food Amendment Bill was pushed through all stages. That matter could have been dealt with at length. There was no reason why we could not have debated that bill quite some time ago.
Mr Daryl Maguire: Absolutely none.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes. The bill that deals with political donations was brought to this Chamber without sufficient consultation or consensus, with promises having been made that there would be a bipartisan approach. It is interesting that those donations and the funding of election—
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr David Campbell): Order! I remind the member for Cronulla that the House is debating the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I was going to link that up.
Mr Barry Collier: You are taking a bit of time to get there.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: The link is that fortunately on this occasion there has been consultation in stark contrast with what happened with the bills that I mentioned earlier. This issue is relevant in relation to the 27708 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
matter before the House. This bill is of considerable importance and it was as well that the consultation was carried out in a wide-ranging fashion. The people who were consulted are listed in the Legislation Review Digest, and I think the member for Terrigal mentioned the views of the Director of Public Prosecution, who said:
I indicate that I strongly support the introduction of this legislation that confers power on NSW courts to regulate and restrict persons who are not parties to proceedings in the publication of evidence in and information arising out of criminal proceedings.
And this is important:
The Bill appears to me to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of open justice, the proper administration of justice and the human rights of all concerned.
Perhaps what has not been dealt with at this stage is the appeal mechanisms. It is important that there be oversight in relation to competing interests to ensure that there is a uniform approach. Appellate courts have a very important role in relation to that in stating the principles when an application for a suppression order is made. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in this matter and, hopefully, there will be uniform legislation throughout Australia so that the decisions of appellate courts can be looked at in this State and others. In July 2008 there was a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and there was a request that officers develop proposals on potential areas of harmonisation of suppression and non-publication orders.
Hopefully, there will be a national approach and the orders made in other States will have relevance to those made in this State. I think this is the second stage in relation to the process of information and access to courts. It is important to realise that the bill follows the passage earlier this year of the Court Information Act 2010, which sets a statutory framework for access to documents and other court information held by New South Wales courts in connection with criminal and civil proceedings. At that time the Government indicated that it was the first stage in a two-stage process and this is in fact the second stage of the process and provides in one consolidated statute the law relating to the making of non-publication and suppression orders by courts.
It is interesting to note that in 2004 the Supreme Court conducted community consultation on the issue of access to court records. The consultation identified issues about the existing framework for accessing court information and resulted in the referral of the issue to the Attorney General's Department for the development of an appropriate policy. In June 2006 the department released a discussion paper called "Review of the Policy on Access to Court Information" for public consultation. Submissions further informed the department's consideration of a new framework for managing access to court information.
In 2008 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General asked officers to look at the current use of suppression and non-publication orders, including the possibility of harmonisation across jurisdictions. Suppression orders have been made by judges. I note that the member for Epping is now in the Chamber and he has been involved in cases where judges have made suppression orders. It is important that a statutory framework will now exist for applications made to judges for suppression orders. It is also important to understand which parties are involved in relation to suppression orders because, as I indicated, this is an area involving public interest and human rights and clause 6 of part 2 provides for the safeguarding of public interest in open justice. Clause 9 (2) provides that:
(2) Each of the following persons is entitled to appear and be heard by the court on an application for a suppression order or non-publication order:
(a) the applicant for the order,
(b) a party to the proceedings concerned,
(c) the Government (or an agency of the Government) of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory,
(d) a news media organisation,
(e) any other person who, in the court’s opinion, has a sufficient interest in the question of whether a suppression order or non-publication order should be made.
That is a much wider group of bodies than previously. I think previously when a suppression order was made it would only be the parties appearing before the judge that were entitled to make submissions. We see now that there is a much wider group of people who have an interest and who are therefore entitled to make a submission. That is only proper because a delicate balance has to be struck between the openness of justice and human rights. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27709
Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [11.17 a.m.]: I wish to make a brief contribution in relation to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010. I note that the bill is directed towards the suppression and non-publication of matters before courts and I note the inherent conflict in these sorts of matters, the importance of ensuring open access to justice and that the public are not excluded in any way from deliberations over matters that affect their rights. Just as in this place every word is recorded in Hansard—sometimes sadly, but nevertheless every word is recorded, and sometimes there might be good argument to suppress some of the things that are said in this place—it is fundamental that there should be open access to justice.
I note that there has been a long development of these principles and that there is a fundamental dilemma, which the bill seeks to grapple with. It is a dilemma that Chief Justice Spigelman dealt with in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of New South Wales (2004) 61 NSWLR 344. He talked in some detail about the principles of open justice and of a fair trial, and he noted two conflicting principles in relation to providing for open justice—justice that is available for all to see—and at the same time ensuring that the rights of parties before a court are not prejudiced by the release of information that may be sub judice, for example. He points to a couple of his articles relating to this matter: "Seen to be Done: The Principle of Open Justice" (2000) 74 Australian Law Journal 290, and "The Truth Can Cost too Much: The Principle of a Fair Trial", (2004) 78 Australian Law Journal 29. There have been many cases where comments made outside this place, such as in the media, have had a prejudicial effect.
Mr Barry Collier: And in this place.
Mr ROB STOKES: And in this place. In fact, it has caught former Premiers. Premier Wran was involved in one of these matters in Director of Public Prosecutions v Wran in 1987. There has been a long development of the need to balance open justice and a fair trial, and that is what this legislation is designed to address. In that respect I note that this legislation follows the Court Information Act, which was passed earlier this year. It represents a second stage in the development of open access to court information while balancing the need for a fair trial. The bill also follows a reference to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in 1998 on contempt by publication. That resulted in a report published in 2003 on the law of contempt by publication, which pointed out that the law of contempt by publication is linked to the right to access court information. The report also pointed to the need to clarify the law, and this bill in part reflects the recommendations of that report.
The bill also follows a long period of community consultation undertaken by the Supreme Court on the issue of access to records of the court. That culminated in the publication by the Attorney General's Department of a discussion paper in the middle of 2006 on the review of access to court information. That further resulted in the release of a report two years later on the same subject. At the same time the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General looked at ways in which the use of suppression and non-publication orders might be harmonised. The bill represents a step to uniform laws, which is an important development. It is one of the areas in which the laws of the Commonwealth should be harmonised. Unlike other legislation introduced into this place, as the member for Cronulla said, the bill follows a very extensive process of development and consultation. Turning to the specific provisions of the bill, I note that the fundamental principle and dilemma that the legislation seeks to address is outlined in clause 6, which says:
In deciding whether to make a suppression order or non-publication order, a court must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.
It says that right up front and acknowledges that fundamental dilemma. Clause 7 sets out the power to make orders and I note, as did the member for Cronulla, that it applies to everyone and not just those involved in proceedings. This point was raised in the Law Reform Commission report. I am delighted that it was able to identify that issue for this place to correct. The grounds for making the order are set out in clause 8. Again, those grounds deal with any matter that has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. The matters referred to are similar to the sorts of things you would expect in the common law offence of sub judice. The process for making an order is spelled out in clause 9. It establishes wide standing, which is appropriate, and the standing to seek an order is either automatic or by application, which is also appropriate.
Clauses 10 and 11 relate to the making of interim orders and the geographic application of an order. I have linked these provisions together because, in one sense, they both apply to issues of electronic communication; for example, the Internet and Twitter. Sometimes there is a need to make an interim order, particularly given that information can be published and disseminated so quickly. I single out Twitter 27710 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
particularly because it is very easy to Twitter something from a court, and indeed from this place. It is important to clarify the geographic extent of the application of an order given the ease and wide dissemination of Internet communications. We do not oppose the bill.
Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde) [11.25 a.m.]: At the outset I indicate that I will not oppose the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010. The importance of giving courts the power to order the suppression of names or non-publication of documents is critical in certain circumstances. One can readily envisage a situation where, for example, a child is involved as a witness. The Family Court, as a matter of protocol, requires suppression of names. One can envisage a situation in a terrorism case or a case of extortion where witnesses are required to come before the court. There could be serious questions about a witness's wellbeing in the sense that there could be threats against the witness himself or herself. In those cases it would be obviously desirable and appropriate for the courts to order suppression of a name or a document.
Having read the Minister's agreement in principle speech, my understanding is that the bill is the culmination of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General process. The committee has developed model legislation in relation to suppression and non-publication orders and I understand New South Wales is the first State to embark on this and has taken a leadership role, which is good to see. Although Australia is divided into States, there are so many cases these days that involve parties from different States, so we need uniform laws to stop people forum shopping to get the best outcome for the defendant or the plaintiff, as the case may be. We need uniform laws in relation to non-publication orders because, apart from providing certainty and clarity, it will prevent abuse of the system, which in my view is forum shopping. Justice is about getting the right outcome by a fair method, not necessarily because someone is able to go to a particular jurisdiction that is more favourable than another. Turning to the background to the bill, I note that Chief Justice Spigelman said in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of NSW, (2004) 61 New South Wales Law Reports 344:
It is well established that the principle of open justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the system of justice in Australia. The conduct of proceedings in public ... is an essential quality of an Australian court of justice. There is no inherent power of the court to exclude the public.
I refer to a recent decision by Justice Whealy in the Crown v Baladjam [2008] NSWSC 714, which involved the terrorism trials. Those trials are now well-known to the public and to members of the House. However, at the time, quite appropriately, they did not receive a lot of attention in the media. In that case there was an application for a form of suppression. His Honour Justice Whealy went through the authorities as they were back then in February 2008. I will quote part of what Justice Whealy said because it puts into context the importance of this legislation, in the sense that this legislation clarifies the position. At paragraph [39] Justice Whealy said:
My decision, as I have said, is required urgently in the present matter. As a consequence, rather than dwell upon this fairly difficult preliminary question, I have come to the conclusion that I should, without deciding it finally, make the assumption that I do have the power to grant the injunction that is sought. Second, I will make the assumption for the present moment that, despite the strictures of the issue of a suppression order presently applicable to this State, I also possess the power to make orders of the kind sought by the accused in the present matter. It may well be that the correct position is that no such orders can be made.
At that time in 2008, at this important terrorism trial which related to the wellbeing of every member of this State, let alone every Australian citizen, His Honour was concerned as to whether he had powers to make suppression orders. Therefore, His Honour—a respected judge of the Supreme Court—had to make some assumptions. This is where I think this bill provides enormous assistance and clarity to the judiciary, not just in the Supreme Court. As the member for Miranda outlined in his agreement in principle speech, this applies also to the District Court, the Land and Environment Court and to other tribunals exercising judicial power. I think this is an important bill. I will continue quoting from what His Honour Justice Whealy said in relation to this case and to the application of suppression orders. At paragraph [41] he said:
I have elsewhere summarised the authorities relating to the present law in this State related to those principles ...
His Honour quotes several articles and he then went into the principles in the John Fairfax Publications decision and summarised those John Fairfax principles as follows:
(1) Open justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the system of justice in Australia. The conduct of proceedings in public is an essential quality of an Australian court of justice.
(2) Where the court has an inherent or statutory jurisdiction to make a non-publication order, a test of necessity—
11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27711
I will refer later to that test of necessity—
is ordinarily applied to the exercise of power to make such an order. A court can only depart from the fundamental rule that the administration of justice must take place in open court where observance of that rule would frustrate the administration of justice or some other public interest for whose protection Parliament has modified the open justice rule. An order of the court prohibiting the publication of evidence is only valid where it is really necessary to secure the proper administration of justice in the proceedings before it.
(3) An order prohibiting publication of evidence must be clear in its terms and do no more than is necessary to achieve the due administration of justice and the protection of the relevant public interest.
(4) The making of the order must also be reasonably necessary, and there must be some material before the court upon which it can reasonably reach the conclusion that is necessary to make an order prohibiting publication.
(5) It is well-established that the exceptions to the principles of open justice are few and strictly defined. It is now accepted that the courts will not add to the list of exceptions but Parliament may do so, subject to any constitutional constraints.
The most important aspect of those principles, as they apply to members of this House, is that Parliament has a large role to play in the provision of power to the courts relating to suppression orders and non-suppression orders. That is for good reason. The fundamental basis must always be that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Justice can never be seen to be done when there is a closed court. When I am in the community and I am talking about various issues I always say that ignorance perpetuates problems, prejudice, fear, loathing, racism and the like. If a court is closed the people who are standing outside that court will be saying, "What is going on inside that court? What are they talking about? Why can we not hear it? Is a conspiracy going on between the parties? Is something going on between the judge and the other parties? Why are we not entitled to hear it?" For these sound reasons it critical for courts to remain open to the public.
That is why in the John Fairfax Publications case His Honour was saying that it is really for the Parliament to regulate when that element of openness can be breached. I think it is appropriate for us to do it but we have to be very careful. I am pleased that this legislation has gone through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG] process. As I reflected yesterday in debate on the Surrogacy Bill, I would have preferred it if the Surrogacy Bill had gone through the SCAG process. I do not think it went through to the final stages of SCAG, but at least this bill has. We have here the best model that we could possibly have. This bill, in its draft form, would have been presented to all the States and Territories and all the expertise of the Attorneys General from the various States and Territories would have been there during the SCAG process. Those Attorneys General would have said, "These are good provisions and we need them" or, alternatively, "This did not work in our jurisdiction. We need to improve it by including this provision."
I am comfortable that, through the process of competition between the States that Federation thankfully provides us, we have a good working model for suppression and non-publication orders. I said earlier that I would return to the test of necessity. His Honour Chief Justice Spigelman observed at page 366 the following relating to necessity:
[103] There are now a significant number of cases in which the issue has arisen as to whether or not an accused was able to have a trial in light of substantial media publicity, indeed publicity much more sensational and sustained than anything that occurred here. Those cases have decisively rejected the previous tendency to regard jurors as exceptionally fragile and prone to prejudice.
Trial judges of considerable experience have asserted, again and again, that jurors approach their task in accordance with the oath that they take, that they listen to the directions that they are given and implement them. In particular, that they listen to the direction that they are to determine guilt only on the evidence before them.
Making suppression orders involves an element of necessity. This bill goes a long way to providing clarity and certainty not only to the courts but also to the parties who need to approach courts on a daily basis. I commend the bill to the House.
[Business interrupted.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing Orders: Government Business
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.40 a.m.]: I move:
That standing orders be suspended to permit Government business to continue beyond 11.45 a.m.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.40 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this motion because an important ceremony took place today, Remembrance Day, which members wanted to attend. It is important that we paid our respects. Consequently, members have been detained and the progress of bills through the House has been delayed slightly. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose this motion. 27712 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.41 a.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Wagga Wagga and the Opposition for their understanding and consideration of this matter.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
COURT SUPPRESSION AND NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS BILL 2010
Agreement in Principle
[Business resumed.]
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [11.42 a.m.]: My colleague the member for Terrigal has given the House the Coalition's speech supporting the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010. However, I should like to add a few comments to what has been said. I and many of my colleagues have been involved in some difficult situations involving witnesses who were informers, were just giving evidence in a case or were due to give evidence. In one case the person was a professional informer and was likely to be a witness from time to time in a closed court. The bill does not specifically mention the use of pseudonyms, but I believe the terminology "suppression order" covers that matter. Using pseudonyms is an important tool for undercover police and informers. Pseudonyms apply also in cases when the accused has the same surname as the victim or witness, and in cases where the accused is under age at the time of the prosecution.
Court decisions early in the 1990s suppressed names of accused not for reasons of similarity but just for their protection from publicity. The Court of Appeal ruled that such decisions were invalid and that if accused people were eligible to be named, they must fall into the open justice system and have their names published, despite any disgrace that may be brought to bear. Criminal proceedings do bring an element of disgrace, particularly those involving former schoolteachers, priests, scoutmasters and people of similar vocations who are likely to attract adverse publicity. Most people charged with criminal offences do not receive much publicity. Thousands of offences are prosecuted in the courts, but only big names or people from a sensitive or professional background are likely to be punished through being named. However, publishing the names of accused persons is part of our justice system as a discouragement of criminal behaviour. It is a prosecutorial deterrent to discourage committing crime.
I am pleased that in clause 3 the definition of "court" means not only the Supreme Court, Land and Environment Court, Industrial Court, District Court, Local Court or Children's Court, but also "any other court or tribunal, or a person or body having power to act judicially, prescribed by the regulations as a court for the purposes of this Act". In the past there has been some lack of clarity about the status of committal proceedings and whether they are a court hearing or an inquiry. Inquiries used to be caught under the Justices Act. Some magistrates would not close a committal hearing or make orders suppressing names or for non-publication. I understand that caution, but sometimes that decision led to Supreme Court proceedings. I recall at one committal hearing involving my namesake, Arthur Stanley "Neddy" Smith, some witnesses were given the pseudonyms Green, Brown or White or something similar. The prosecutor wanted those names suppressed because those people were risking their lives as they were allegedly involved in the crimes with which Neddy Smith was charged. Ultimately, Neddy Smith was convicted of some of those charges, some of which involved murders.
A particular magistrate—Pat O'Shane is her name—refused to suppress the names. There was a flurry of activity and at great expense an action was taken before a single judge of the Supreme Court who ordered that the names be suppressed. The matter went to the Court of Appeal which, under the then Chief Justice, Justice Gleeson, in a leading judgement clarified when names should be suppressed and stated that it did not matter if it was a committal hearing. Suppression orders were made in earlier cases involving blackmail and similar issues. For sexual assault proceedings courts have had powers for many years to close the court, particularly if a child is involved but also for an adult, or to suppress the names of witnesses.
That has been a good thing. It has meant that the victims in those cases and their witnesses—sometimes people giving evidence of complaint, sometimes mothers or fathers—did not have to suffer the attendant bad publicity of the case. Many sex cases are not reported in the newspapers because most of them are conducted in closed courts or are under suppression orders. That is somewhat unfortunate because the public might think 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27713
there are not many of those cases, and it might also not have the deterrent effect it otherwise would have. However, for the privacy of the victims, their families and some witnesses giving sensitive evidence it is necessary for courts to have those powers.
The name "John Fairfax and Sons" pops up in many cases involving suppression orders, closed courts and non-publication orders. The most celebrated decision was that of John Fairfax and Sons v Police Tribunal of NSW 1986 5 NSWLR at 465. I recall the most sensational police tribunal hearing involved Roger Caleb Rogerson as the subject of disciplinary proceedings. In the course of those proceedings a record of interview in which he had taken part was tendered and an attempt was made to suppress the name of a notorious informer. The tribunal, constituted by Judge Thorley, made that order. He felt he had power to make the order; the Court of Appeal said he did not.
I do not recall whether the informer's name subsequently was published by the Sydney Morning Herald but certainly it was available to be published. There may have been other conditions. However, that informer later featured in the Rogerson trial in which I was junior counsel for the Crown. We got him; he was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The former senior Crown Prosecutor, Bill Job, QC, who at that time was an acting deputy senior Crown Prosecutor because he had retired, put to Rogerson that he had an unsavoury association with Arthur Stanley Smith, or Neddy Smith as he also was known. He tried to deny it: he said, "He's one of my informers."
There is no doubt that Rogerson maintained that for some years, but the interesting fact was that Mr Job then showed him the records in a visitors register of Long Bay jail. Rogerson was the only regular visitor to Arthur Stanley Smith after he had been jailed for a murder that had taken place in Coogee Bay Road, or for some other murder, and Rogerson said, "Well, I've got to have some friends", or words to that effect. He said, "If you won't talk to me—none of you will talk to me—I've got to have some friends." It was quite a moving moment! He was convicted but the conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. However, we got him back—if I may use that expression—in the High Court. The Court of Criminal Appeal proceedings continued to decide other questions, unsuccessfully for Mr Rogerson who went back to jail.
Underbelly is a very topical show. I would not let my children watch it when they were younger. Nevertheless, there is some truth in it, and it is a sensational show. The episode concerning the Mr Asia Syndicate is interesting. It features Terrence Clark, Christopher Martin Johnstone, Robert Trimbole—the whole gang. An interesting issue that I heard about arose in Underbelly concerning Allison Dine, who was the very attractive supervising courier. She could be described as a forewoman because she looked after a group of couriers who came and went. She gave evidence during committal proceedings involving Brian Alexander and others about leaking the Wilson tapes to Clark and others, which led to the murder of Douglas and Isabel Wilson for which Bazley was convicted. Bazley was a hired hit man who went through Trimbole to Tizzoni to get to Wilson. Tizzoni got him through gun shop dealer, George Joseph. At one stage I visited them in Jaika Jaika jail, just to have a chat.
Mr Robert Coombs: Can you tell us about that?
Mr GREG SMITH: No. Allison Dine's name was suppressed in the committal proceedings. The problem was that when suppression orders were made in the late seventies and right through to 2000, it was thought that they were permanent orders. The television producers were worried because the hottest evidence Ms Dine had ever given was at the committal hearing and the producers thought they may not have been able to use the material. They had somehow obtained the transcripts and they were very interesting. They told the story of the Mr Asia Syndicate, and since then it has been told over and over including in the report of the royal commission on the Chorley trial in Lancashire, England, where Terrence Clark was convicted of murder. His conviction related to the discovery of the handless body of Christopher Martin Johnstone that was found in a flooded quarry.
These situations necessitating suppression orders arise and cause problems. An important aspect of this legislation is that it appears, although it is not entirely clear, that it is binding outside the court. One of the problems with suppression orders is that they are ineffective unless it can be shown that a journalist or the person who published the article had knowledge of the suppression order. Generally that was known by court reporters because a sign used to be placed on the courtroom door, copies of which were given to journalists; but journalists who picked up the story in some other way, perhaps through Australian Associated Press [AAP], 27714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
were at risk of offending. In the case known as SLD, which involved the murder of a three-year-old by a 13-year-old, the child's name was suppressed because it caused great hurt to the brothers of the accused whose friends at school kept asking them about the case. The brothers had to be removed from the school and their home was changed. They had a very unusual name. They were named in a Fairfax publication and a recommendation was made. [Extension of time agreed to.]
An article was written in which the name of the child was published. The article was published after her death following media coverage of the funeral, but as a result of the publicity they received, the children needed special treatment. Suddenly their troubles had returned. Consideration was given to charging the Sydney Morning Herald with contempt of court, but because we could not prove that the journalist knew of the order— he was not in attendance at court—the case did not go ahead. Nevertheless, it probably led to a change in the law, which is why the names of deceased children cannot be published. The determination was that while the media may not have known, they have a duty to tell other journalists to be careful. As a result of this legislation the media will have more responsibility and will have to rely heavily on journalists attending court proceedings to obtain knowledge of the existence of suppression orders. The courts also may have to bear responsibility for notifying the media.
In court cases that are under way currently, there are witnesses whose names are suppressed and media outlets must not publish them. Another case with a similar problem involves children as the accused. A 10-year-old drowned a six-year-old. I prosecuted the case. Ultimately the accused was acquitted of manslaughter in the Central Criminal Court. Under doli incapax, we were unable to show that he had sufficient understanding of a 10-year-old. Although he was 10 years old, he had the developmental level of a seven-year-old. Two little boys witnessed the drowning. They both had learning problems. I think they were sufferers of hyperactivity. One of them was brought to the Children's Court and gave his evidence from an anteroom by video link. The case attracted a great deal of attention and media representatives packed the court room. The boy could hear their laughter. He clowned around a bit by getting under the table and doing similar things. The magistrate had difficulty, but finally we obtained the evidence from him. The problem arose when one of the newspapers published an article about his clowning around. His photograph or image was not allowed to be published.
In spite of his image on television having been pixelated, his friends all recognised his walk and his Spiderman outfit, even though his face was covered. He became the subject of great interest at school to the extent that, when the trial was under way, his father took him into hiding. We could obtain his evidence only if we gave a guarantee that there would be no media involved in the trial. However, the law allows media representatives to sit in on Children's Court or even Supreme Court proceedings involving children, and the media have that exclusive right. The prosecution sought a closed court proceeding for the purpose of obtaining the boy's evidence, but that was refused. Ultimately the boy's father refused to bring him back, which seriously weakened the case. The old open justice rule has been a good one in many ways, but on occasions it can have its disadvantages.
This type of legislation that clarifies powers is good legislation. I have covered several of the issues I wished to discuss, but there are more. In the John Fairfax case there is a very good description of the power of courts to make orders that are binding outside the courtroom. It explains some of the problems. In the John Fairfax and sons case Justice McHugh, who gave the leading judgement, said:
When the court is an inferior court, the order must do no more than is "necessary to enable it to act effectively within" its jurisdiction …
Courts have no general authority, however, to make orders binding people in their conduct outside the courtroom.
The clear intention is that orders will be binding, but notice is important. It has taken us a while to move to this point. It is good that this initiative came from the Council of Australian Governments, because it means that the law will be consistent across all jurisdictions. South Australia used to have the most ridiculously tight laws; the media could not publish the name of a person who had been charged, which led to a lot of embarrassment. These measures are necessary in cases in which an accused is charged with multiple offences—for example, sexual offences—because of the prejudicial effect of hearing the evidence of the alleged victims together. In those circumstances courts often separate the cases. The courts cannot publish names and receive sensational publicity if they then want to run a series of impartial trials. It is difficult to get impartiality in those circumstances, so it is good to use suppression and non-publication orders. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27715
In the past there have been many problems when closed courts have been refused and cases have not been able to proceed. That has been unfortunate because as a result some very dangerous criminals have been allowed to walk free because victims or witnesses were not prepared to face the accused. In the Phuong Ngo case the High Court showed realism in not allowing special leave to appeal the ground that Phuong Ngo was unable to see a couple of the witnesses who gave evidence against him. The witnesses appeared via television screen and from a remote location. The jury and all the lawyers saw the witnesses but Phuong Ngo could not do so. They were scared to death of Phuong Ngo and they were not prepared to face him. The court refused to give leave to appeal the ground that that had deprived Phuong Ngo of his right to open justice. So there are cases in which circumstances have to be tailored. This legislation is a good move.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Terrigal, Wyong, Cronulla, Pittwater, Ryde and Epping for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank the member for Epping for what was a learned contribution based on his experience. I am sure all members will be interested in reading his contribution, given his long experience in prosecution work at all levels. The member for Cronulla raised several issues, including broadcasting in other States—I think he referred to South Australia. I am advised that the Department of Justice and Attorney General has been asked to consider the option of webcasting proceedings in New South Wales.
The member for Cronulla is an avid reader of the Legislation Review Committee's digests; he regularly comes into the Chamber with one under his arm. He referred to the digest that addressed the scope of this bill. In response to him and to the Legislation Review Committee, I point out that the bill establishes a statutory framework for the making of suppression and non-publication orders by our courts. It is important to recognise that the inherent jurisdiction of the courts is not affected and the judiciary maintains its discretion to decide each and every case on its merits. The member for Cronulla and the member for Pittwater referred to the concept of an open and just society. Clause 6 clearly states that the overriding objective of the bill is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.
I draw attention to the wording of clause 8 (1) (e) which makes it abundantly clear that the public interest in open justice is to remain the primary consideration and an order should not be made even if it would spare victims distress or protect public decency or morality unless the interest in protecting those victims or protecting decency or morality significantly—I emphasise the word "significantly"—outweighs the public interest in open justice. The member for Epping rightly said that pseudonyms are an important tool used by the courts. Indeed, the courts in New South Wales and the Family Court use pseudonyms as a matter of course to protect the privacy of a family and the interests of children and the participants involved.
In relation to pseudonyms, clause 7 (a) allows a court to make an order prohibiting or restricting publication or disclosure of any information tending to reveal the identity of any party to or witness in proceedings. This will facilitate the courts suppressing information relating to pseudonyms. I point out that clause 4 provides that the Act does not limit the inherent jurisdiction or power of a court to regulate its proceedings. So I do not think there is a problem in that respect. As for offences and enforcement of the law, clause 16 sets out the relevant offence. It provides that an offence is committed if a person contravenes an order and is reckless as to whether their conduct contravened the order. At the same time the person may also be punished for contempt of court. However, a person cannot be punished twice, both for the offence listed and for contempt.
Further, the bill does not affect any other laws, for example, special provisions relating to restricting or prohibiting the names of children involved in proceedings, and those remain in force. Members made an interesting point about the two stage implementation of laws relating to non-publication and suppression orders. It is important to know that the Court Information Act 2010, which was passed by this House in May, was the first stage of a two-stage process that will see all statutory provisions relating to access to court information, including suppression and non-publication orders, eventually contained in a single statute. The Court Information Act classifies all court information as either open access information or restricted access information, and sets out the framework by which these two categories of court information can be accessed by the public and media organisations. The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010 is the second stage of the process.
Collectively, these two pieces of legislation set up the statutory framework for obtaining access to most court information. The Government anticipates that eventually all legislation relating to court information, 27716 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
including suppression and non-publication orders, will be consolidated in one statute. That will greatly assist judicial officers, the legal profession and the media in particular—the media are often required to obtain information quickly in order to meet tight deadlines—to more easily determine the law against which orders and publication is assessed. In the meantime the Government has been careful to ensure that the courts retain their power to make suppression and non-publication orders and to restrict access to court information in particular cases, and that the protections currently offered to vulnerable persons, such as victims in sexual assault cases and children involved in proceedings, are not diluted.
The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010 is another reflection of the Government's commitment to the principles of open justice and appropriate access to court information. The bill is the culmination of extensive research, discussion and consultation on several levels, from the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's 2003 review of the law of contempt by publication and the 2004 New South Wales Supreme Court's community consultation on the issue of access to court records, to the June 2006 Department of Justice and Attorney General's discussion paper entitled "Review of the Policy on Access to Court Information" and the department's subsequent "Report on Access to Court Information", which was publicly released in July 2008.
Added to this, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General recognised that greater uniformity in the system of suppression and non-publication orders across Australia was necessary to give the public and the media in particular greater certainty and clarity about what they can and cannot know and report. Currently, there are many differences across jurisdictions in relation to laws on suppression and non-publication orders, including the use of different terminology, various powers to make orders, grounds for making orders, issues of standing, the duration of orders, the review and appeal of orders, and the consequences for breaching orders.
The Courts Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010 is greatly informed by the earlier reports to which I have referred and gives effect to the multiple provisions that were developed by an Australia-wide working party, and subsequently endorsed by the Attorneys General at their May 2010 meeting. There has been an exhaustive amount of consultation undertaken throughout the development of this legislation, including with the courts, media, judiciary, legal profession, Victims Advisory Board, NSW Ombudsman, NSW Police Force and the New South Wales Department of Human Services. The legislation has received broad and often strong support from stakeholders. As the member for Terrigal said, the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions was particularly supportive and stated:
I indicate that I strongly support the introduction of this legislation that confers powers on NSW courts to regulate and restrict persons who are not parties to proceedings in the publication of evidence in and information arising out of criminal proceedings. The Bill appears to me to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of open justice, the proper administration of justice and the human rights of all concerned.
The Chief Magistrate of New South Wales Local Courts has also been very supportive. He stated:
I agree that in the interests of commonality the approach throughout the Commonwealth and the consolidation of often conflicting legislation in NSW regarding the making of non-publication orders that a standardised approach is appropriate and, in my view, long overdue.
I reiterate that as the first jurisdiction to adopt the model provisions in relation to the suppression and non-publication orders, New South Wales is once again leading the nation in relation to court information. The Government believes that the Courts Suppression and Non-publication Orders Bill 2010 strikes the right balance between the interests of open justice, the proper administration of justice and the human rights of all concerned. I have pleasure in commending the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27717
NATURE CONSERVATION TRUST AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with an amendment.
Consideration in Detail
Consideration of the Legislative Council amendment.
Schedule of amendment referred to in message of 9 November 2010
Page 9, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:
[21] Section 38B
Insert after section 38A:
38B Application of rate exemptions under Local Government Act 1993
(1) A council may, by notice in writing to the land holder, exempt from all rates under the Local Government Act 1993 land that is the subject of a Trust agreement.
(2) In such a case, section 555 of the Local Government Act 1993 applies in respect of land the subject of the Trust agreement in the same way as it applies in respect of land the subject of a conservation agreement (within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974).
(3) However, a reference in section 555 (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 to a period on or after 1 July 2008 is to be read, in relation to the Trust agreement, as a reference to a period in respect of which the exemption is granted.
Motion by Mr John Aquilina, on behalf of Mr Frank Sartor, agreed to:
That the House agree to the Legislative Council amendment.
Legislative Council amendment agreed to.
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.
ELECTION FUNDING AND DISCLOSURES AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Consideration in Detail
Consideration of the Legislative Council amendment.
Schedule of amendment referred to in message of 11 November 2010
Page 20, schedule 1. Insert after line 12:
[28] Section 96GAA
Insert before section 96GA:
96GAA Meaning of "prohibited donor"
For the purposes of this Division, a prohibited donor is:
(a) a property developer, or
(b) a tobacco industry business entity, or
(c) a liquor or gambling industry business entity,
and includes any industry representative organisation if the majority of its members are such prohibited donors.
[29] Sections 96GA and 96GE
Omit "property developer" wherever occurring.
Insert instead "prohibited donor".
27718 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
[30] Section 96GB Meaning of "property developer", "tobacco industry business entity" and "liquor or gambling industry business entity"
Insert after section 96GB (2):
(2A) Each of the following persons is a tobacco industry business entity:
(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that is mainly concerned with the manufacture or sale of tobacco products,
(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).
(2B) Each of the following persons is a liquor or gambling industry business entity:
(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that is mainly concerned with either or a combination of the following, but only if it is for the ultimate purpose of making a profit:
(i) the manufacture or sale of liquor products,
(ii) wagering, betting or other gambling (including the manufacture of machines used primarily for that purpose), or
(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).
Motion by Mr John Aquilina, on behalf of Ms Kristina Keneally, agreed to:
That the House agree to the Legislative Council amendment.
Legislative Council amendment agreed to.
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.
HUNTER NEW ENGLAND AREA HEALTH SERVICE
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [12.13 p.m.]: I move:
That this House congratulates Hunter New England Health on being awarded the 2009 leading area health service in New South Wales.
Who do you turn to in times of need? Who do you turn to in an emergency? Who do you turn to when you need surgery? Well, of course, it is your local hospital. In my case it is the John Hunter and Calvary Mater Hospital. If you add the Newcastle University at Callaghan, you have world-class health care and research all in the wonderful electorate of Wallsend! So it is very heartening to recognise that both the John and the Mater have been recipients of so many awards—honours that help to give our community confidence in our hospital network. The John is the principal referral centre and a community hospital for the Hunter and northern New South Wales. Founded in 1991, it has 550 beds and is such a big hospital. It is the main teaching hospital of the University of Newcastle—yet another reason for community confidence.
Importantly, the hospital contains the only trauma centre in New South Wales outside the Sydney metropolitan area. So no wonder it is special to us. There is no problem with its popularity. It has the busiest emergency department in the State. Perhaps "popularity" is not the appropriate word, but I am sure that members know what I mean. When you have an emergency, then you consider your local hospital as the only place you want to be. I am sure that members are not surprised that Hunter New England Health scooped the pool in the 2009 Quality Awards, because I am not. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of the staff, and I have had the opportunity to see for myself their capacity for professionalism, for hard work and for caring. There is no doubt that the hospital would not have won so many awards, were it not for the talent and ability of the dedicated staff.
I will turn to the many awards that the Hunter New England Health received in the 2009 year. It was awarded the best overall performing health service at the peak health awards in 2009. It was recognised as the State's leading area health service on that night and it took out 10 categories at those awards, including best overall performance by an area health service. Acting chief executive at the time, Chris Kewley, said Hunter New England Health's exceptional performance at the awards was a credit to the hardworking teams of staff across the area. He also said:
These awards are significant for both our staff and our communities.
Recognition at this level reaffirms our belief that Hunter New England Health has an outstanding and dedicated workforce, committed to improving the health and well-being of our communities.
11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27719
Mr Kewley said that the awards recognised the performance of individual health care facilities, as well as area-wide projects. Hunter New England Health extends over a large area across the New England. Hunter New England Health also won the Minister's award for innovation, excellence and commitment within the health system for their project, Tranfusion, which is about improving patient safety, as well as the Clinical Excellence Commission award for improvement in patient safety for pressure ulcer prevention, a crystal solution. Mr Kewley also said:
The awards remind us that we are making a difference to people's lives. This acknowledgement is really important for the thousands of doctors, nurses, allied health and support staff across the State who spend each day directly caring for others or supporting staff who do.
Among the major categories on the evening in 2009, Hunter New England Health was awarded the Minister's award for innovation, excellence and commitment within the health system, as well as best overall performance by an area health service. Other awards to Hunter New England Health included health improvement and patient care and the health services performance awards. I will now turn to 2010. For the second year in a row Hunter New England Health has been recognised as the State's leading area health service taking out the coveted 2010 best overall performance by an area health service. My colleagues on this side of the Chamber would agree because of their association with Hunter New England Health and I know of their good experiences. Their communities put their hospitals in good stead. Recently Maitland Hospital had some important work carried out which is appreciated by the community. My brother was a patient at Maitland Hospital and told the Minister about the excellent care that he received. In relation to the 2010 best overall performance by an area health service, Dr Nigel Lyons said:
Once again, our dedicated workforce has been recognised for the excellent work they are doing to improve the quality and safety of healthcare.
While it is fantastic that the work of individuals and teams across the area has been recognised, it is important to understand these improvements are being achieved each year against a back drop of increasing demand and high expectations from the community.
This increasing demand is due to ageing and growing population and means that staff delivering frontline clinical services often feel the pressure of working in the public health system.
We all are aware of this in our hospitals, whether they are in Hunter New England or Hornsby, or other hospitals. Our ageing population puts more pressure on our public health system, it puts more pressure on the staff and it puts more pressure on volunteers to raise more money for our hospitals. Let me digress for a moment to say thank you to all volunteers who are associated with all of our hospitals, because they do a wonderful job.
Hunter New England Health had five projects as finalists across a number of categories this year. Importantly, the New South Wales Ambulance Service and Hunter New England Health took out the "Creating Better Patient Journeys - Improving Access to Services" category as well as the Minister's Excellence Award for bringing prehospital thrombolysis into regional communities, which sees paramedics administering lifesaving medication to cardiac patients. Professor Peter Fletcher of cardiology at John Hunter Hospital accepted the award along with New South Wales Ambulance Service staff. Professor Fletcher said:
The medication can dissolve a blood clot—allowing paramedics to stop permanent muscle damage and providing the precious minutes and seconds needed to restore blood supply to the heart muscle before the patient gets to hospital.
The project highlights the courage, excellence and teamwork of many people, which has helped patients receive treatment faster, ultimately saving lives—which is what it is all about.
In conclusion, I am really proud that I have had this opportunity today, with my colleagues from the Hunter, to advocate for the Hunter New England Area Health Service. Our experience with it has always been overwhelmingly good and I look forward to listening to the rest of the speakers.
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [12.22 p.m.]: I would like to begin by saying I certainly do congratulate the hardworking nurses, doctors and other health professionals who work for the Hunter New England Area Health Service on the fantastic work they do in looking after the Hunter community against the odds. It must be incredibly difficult to try to treat patients in local emergency departments, for example, when the Government in charge of our hospitals is as incompetent, mismanaged and inept as the current Government we have today.
I certainly congratulate the hardworking nurses, doctors and staff at Tomaree Community Hospital in my electorate for managing a hospital that has been utterly starved of funding and resources under this State 27720 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Labor Government. The Tomaree Community Hospital serves a community of about 25,000 people and that number will treble over the next few weeks as we get into the holiday season. The staff at Tomaree Community Hospital work tirelessly to treat the sick and injured in Port Stephens with minimal resources and support from this State Labor Government. Of course, this Government is one that thinks services at Tomaree Community Hospital are "adequate". The Minister for the Hunter told this House exactly that not long ago. It must be said that I do not believe the Minister has ever stepped foot inside that hospital.
What hope do we have if the Government thinks that the services at Tomaree hospital are adequate when it does not even have an x-ray machine? A patient with a suspected broken bone, for example, has to be taken by ambulance to the local private radiology centre during working hours or, outside working hours, transported to hospitals in Newcastle or Maitland for treatment. In fact the Government is spending around $2,500 a day, which is close to $1 million a year or one-quarter of the 2009-10 budget allocation to the hospital, sending patients away from the Tomaree Community Hospital.
We do not know what the 2010-11 budget allocation is because the Minister for Health refuses to tell me. In July last year I asked a question on notice about how much funding was allocated to Tomaree Community Hospital in the 2009-10 budget, to which the Minister responded to the exact dollar, announcing a sum of $4,053,856 in funding. But when I asked the same question at the beginning of this financial year, the Minister replied:
A final reconciliation of the breakdown is not available until the end of the financial year.
That is typical of this deceitful Labor Government. What has the Keneally Government got to hide? Has funding been reduced for this already resource-starved hospital? Why else would the Minister refuse to hold back these figures? This budget is made up of taxpayer dollars and taxpayers have every right to know where their money is, or is not, being spent. It is no coincidence that the Minister is refusing to reveal these budget figures less than six months out from an election. It is a disgrace.
I congratulate the area health service for recognising the need for a HealthOne clinic in Raymond Terrace, even if it is taking this incompetent State Government five years to build it—and we are still counting. It was around five health Ministers ago, back in 2007, that the project was announced and we have not seen a sod turned yet. These delays will probably get a lot worse with the State Labor Government, in all its wisdom, opting to build the clinic in a residential zone which specifically excludes medical centres and other commercial developments. The project has already been pushed back. In answer to a question on notice in March 2009, the Minister said:
At this stage, the construction of the HealthOne Raymond Terrace facility is expected to be completed by December 2011.
But in answer to a question in April this year the Minister advised:
At this stage on the basis of the revised project proposal, construction of the HealthOne Raymond Terrace facility is expected to be completed by June 2012.
I am not game to ask another question to get a revised completion date on this very much needed facility. People in Raymond Terrace, in my electorate and in the electorate of the member for Maitland are waiting weeks to see a general practitioner, so for the State Labor Government to make them wait even longer for the HealthOne clinic is outrageous and entirely unacceptable.
I also congratulate the Hunter New England Area Health Service for finally getting work done on the new Nelson Bay ambulance station—yet another project in Port Stephens which had to take a back seat to this Government's in-fighting and the ever-revolving doors of the office of the Minister for Health. What are we up to now—five different Ministers in four years? The ambulance station, in true State Labor style, was announced with much fanfare before the 2007 election—much like the HealthOne clinic. The current building is dilapidated and not a suitable workplace for our hardworking ambulance officers, but only in the past two months has construction begun. Is it any coincidence that there is an election just around the corner?
In short, I agree with congratulating the area health service in terms of its nurses and doctors. I congratulate them on working tirelessly to look after and care for our citizens, despite being run by the most disastrous and incompetent Government in Australian history. I certainly do not congratulate the Government in charge of this health service. To me, running the health system into the ground is not something that deserves congratulations. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27721
Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [12.27 p.m.]: The Hunter New England Area Health Service continues to provide high quality health care to Hunter residents and continues to implement initiatives to improve the health and wellbeing of local people. The hard work, commitment and dedication of the Hunter New England Area Health Service was again recognised at this year's health awards, with the area jointly winning the Minister's Excellence Award with the ambulance service for the prehospital thrombolysis project that is saving the lives of cardiac patients in regional communities. While there have been many significant advances in treating people with heart attacks, patients in rural areas can face crucial delays in treatment because of distance from hospitals.
This program allows paramedics to provide a clinically proven cardiac reperfusion intervention or, in simple terms, to get blood flowing again to vessels of the heart. By using technologically advanced ECG equipment, within minutes of reaching a patient a paramedic can send the patient's ECG information directly to a cardiologist at a hospital. This saves precious time in the race to restore blood supply to the heart muscle, directly saving lives. There are now 130 paramedics in 14 locations in the Hunter and mid North Coast who have been trained and equipped to deliver this life-saving treatment.
The Hunter will continue to benefit from the record spending on Health in the 2010-11 budget that follows the Keneally Government's historic agreement with the Commonwealth on health reform. Funding for the New South Wales health system in the Hunter includes a share of the $1.2 billion over four years secured at the Council of Australian Governments, which will deliver better health outcomes for local patients. There will be $7.4 million invested into capital works for the Hunter in 2010-11. Major projects in the Hunter for 2010-11 include $2.3 million to complete the $10 million upgrade of the emergency department of Maitland Hospital; $2.1 million to complete the $8.9 million 20-bed unit at James Fletcher Hospital; and $1.6 million to commence a $1.3 million ambulance station at Cessnock and complete a $1.7 million station at Nelson Bay. Safe assessment rooms will be upgraded in Moree, Inverell and Muswellbrook at a cost of $270,000 during this financial year. Werris Creek is expected to complete planning and move into a construction phase during this financial year and the medical skills training centre at John Hunter Hospital is expected to be completed this financial year.
I want to tell the House about a personal experience I had last Friday afternoon. My young daughter Charlotte, who is seven years of age, managed to amputate the top quarter inch of a finger on her left hand. The poor little thing had her hand in a door jamb and the wind got hold of the door and lopped off the end of the finger. We took her straight to Belmont Hospital where she was triaged straightaway and they put a catheter in her arm. They told us that they do not treat children at Belmont Hospital, which we knew. They made arrangements for her to be transported immediately to John Hunter Hospital and that occurred. She arrived at John Hunter Hospital and a plastic surgeon was waiting for her. In about half an hour she was on the operating table, where the plastic surgeon went to work for about two and a half to three hours and sewed on the missing bit of the finger, which I had in a plastic bag.
I can see members turning up their noses. They might think I am giving a pretty good explanation of what happened. I can assure them I would not have been able to do this on Friday night because this old man was a bit shaken up. However, it is all right now and everything is good. The sling and bandages have been removed. We do not know yet whether the end of the finger will take; only time will tell. The purpose of my giving this explanation is to point out that there would not be many places in the world where you could get that level of service.
I am sure that they did not know who I was and I am sure I did not get any special favours or treatment because I am the local member. I want to place on record my thanks to all those people at Belmont Hospital and John Hunter Hospital for their quick, expedient and professional work and advice to make sure Charlotte's health is restored 100 per cent in the shortest time. I recognise that she will have a number of medical appointments in the future but we are very confident that she will be returned to 100 per cent health very soon. That is the result of the efforts of the hardworking clinicians, hospital and medical staff, and the structure of the health system.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.32 p.m.]: I would like to make a contribution to the debate on this motion congratulating Hunter New England Area Health Service. It is widely spoken of as an excellent health service and it is appropriate that that be recognised. It is predominantly due to the staff—the excellent doctors, nurses and allied health professionals and other staff members who make up the area health service. These people provide the patient-focused quality health care that this area health service, as well as other area health services, has become noted for. However, I point out that despite the staff doing an excellent job there are 27722 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
many challenges and they should not be ignored. I refer to an article that appeared in the Newcastle Herald on 15 October headed "Nurses warn of hospital staff shortage throughout Hunter New England Area Health". The article was written by Matthew Kelly, and states:
Hospital beds may need to be closed because there are not enough nurses to fill shortfalls in Hunter New England Health's new balanced roster system, the Nurses Association told the Industrial Relations Commission yesterday.
Hundreds of shift vacancies are yet to be filled on the controversial rosters that are being implemented throughout the region.
The balanced roster system has been rammed through very quickly without enough vital planning before its implementation. It is supposed to provide a better skill mix across the nursing workforce but unfortunately the reality is that this is not occurring. The article goes on to say:
In one example, a printout of the roster for the Royal Newcastle Centre at John Hunter Hospital shows 192 shift vacancies in wards 1, 2 and 3 between October 4 and December 26.
"The cracks are showing big time," one nurse who contacted the Newcastle Herald said.
"Staff have been given shifts that are impossible for them to work."
The rosters, already in operation in sections of John Hunter and Maitland hospitals, are to be introduced at Belmont Hospital on October 18.
These rosters are causing great problems. They are inflexible and there has not been enough consultation about their implementation. The article continues:
The roster system is designed to improve patient care by ensuring a better skills mix on each shift.
But many nurses say the system is unworkable and does not allow sufficient flexibility.
The health service has been unable to fill the vacant shifts caused by the roster. I refer to another Newcastle Herald headline, which reads "Rostering too rigid: Skinner". The article, by Tim Connell, states:
The state opposition has vowed to axe balanced rostering for Hunter nurses if it wins next year's election, and accused the government of treating frontline health workers "like dirt".
Further on the article says:
"Balanced rostering is a step in the wrong direction," Mrs Skinner said.
"This government says 'we love nurses, but we'll treat you like dirt'."
Hunter New England Health is in the process of moving nurses from the previous request-based rosters, where nurses nominate when they want to work, to rosters based on which staff are desired to meet clinical needs.
Unfortunately, these rosters are not working to the optimum level that was expected and nurses who have long-term plans based on the rosters they wish to work are unable to work the new rosters. Other problems relating to the workforce include the fact that there are fewer nurses now than there were two years ago. The Keneally Labor Government has cut nurse positions. A secret report obtained by the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals in July outlined NSW Health plans to cut 291 jobs in western Sydney, but it is occurring across the board. We cannot have more beds without having more nurses. That is logical.
The new roster system that is being implemented in John Hunter Hospital amid widespread concern and disengagement of nurses and midwives is obviously not the answer. Any rostering system that does not recognise that staff need flexibility is a failure. Nurse rostering must be nurse supported and, where possible, allow for nurse self-rostering to accommodate flexibility. The Keneally Labor Government has a track record of not genuinely consulting and rushing through big changes. [Time expired.]
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.37 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by the member for Wallsend to recognise the fantastic contribution that the Hunter New England Area Health Service makes to our community. Hunter New England Health is unique in that it is the only area health service with a major metropolitan centre as well as a mix of several large regional centres and many smaller rural centres and remote communities within its borders. The Hunter New England Area Health Service serves a population of approximately 840,000 people, covering a geographical area of over 130,000 square kilometres. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27723
Importantly, over 20 per cent of the State's Aboriginal population lives in the Hunter New England Area Health Service catchment area. It has 93 public health facilities, including 19 community hospitals and multipurpose services, 14 district health services, 4 rural referral hospitals, 2 tertiary referral hospitals and 57 community health centres, together with a number of other facilities including mental health and aged care facilities. As at June 2010 the Hunter New England Area Health Service employed approximately 11,022 full-time equivalent staff, 77.7 per cent of whom were classified as medical, nursing, allied health staff, oral health workers, scientific and technical support staff and other health professionals.
Major funding for the Hunter New England Area Health Service workforce includes $764,000 to employ more clinical nurse educators to improve the clinical skills of nurses and enhance patient care, $583,000 to employ more nurse practitioners in rural areas, and $510,000 to recruit more midwives and provide clinical education for maternity staff. In 2010-11 the New South Wales Government is investing $1.35 billion in the Hunter New England Area Health Service. The 2010-11 budget represents an increase of $84.6 million more than the amount allocated in last year's budget.
Major health service enhancements for the Hunter New England Area Health Service include $13.1 million to increase the number of acute beds and $3.8 million for increased surgery as part of the Commonwealth Council of Australian Governments' initiative; $7 million to assist in the reduction of elective surgery waiting times; a $6.2 million share of statewide initiatives, including $2.3 million for the Rural Health Plan, which includes establishing a stroke unit at Tamworth; $1.4 million for additional adult intensive care beds, staffing and equipment to further expand critical care capacity at John Hunter Hospital; $1 million for renal dialysis; $800,000 for four special care cots at Maitland Hospital; $420,000 to establish an adult Cochlear implant service at John Hunter Hospital; $116,000 to expand trauma services at Tamworth Hospital; a $106,000 boost to Hunter Genetics in Newcastle to expand clinical genetics services; $1 million for the service provision of forensic pathology units; $843,000 in funding as part of the National Mental Health Program; and $725,000 for Keep Them Safe funding, resulting from the Wood inquiry recommendations.
This Government's track record in supporting area health services is outstanding. Health is a difficult portfolio area. We never know who will present at our hospitals and we are not aware whether or not there will be complications in individual cases. It is an enormous job to manage a significant-size workforce and all the demands across the health spectrum. Through this motion members will have an opportunity to reflect on this Government's investment in day-to-day health services, recognise its investment in capital infrastructure programs and, importantly, recognise the fantastic contribution and high standard of service provided every day by staff in our area health services. On behalf of my community I thank all those staff in our area health services.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.42 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for Wallsend, which is in the following terms:
That this House congratulates Hunter New England Health on being awarded the 2009 leading area health service in New South Wales.
The Opposition has not moved any amendments to this motion in recognition of the amazing work that is being done by nurses and allied health workers in Hunter New England Health. I am sure all members acknowledge the wonderful work that is being done by nurses and allied health workers in area health services throughout this State. However, the North Coast Area Health Service has not been allocated funding equivalent to the funding that has been allocated to Hunter New England Health. Four hundred front-line jobs were axed in the North Coast Area Health Service, which created major problems for the remaining nurses who have to provide essential services. Earlier the member for Swansea described what happened to his daughter last Friday. It is great to have a base hospital that provides such necessary services.
Sadly, stage three of Lismore Base Hospital, which is located in the Northern Rivers region, leaves a lot to be desired. On a number of occasions I have referred in this Chamber to the shortcomings at Lismore Base Hospital. Other members have said that a base hospital is important as it provides the services that members of the community deserve and expect. Patients who are not able to access these necessary services at Lismore Base Hospital have to be transported to the Tweed Heads hospital, which demonstrates a lack of commitment by this Government to the North Coast Area Health Service. John Hunter Hospital is a good example of what can be achieved, as that hospital receives the right support. I congratulate John Hunter Hospital on receiving the award for the best area health service in this State. I am sure the member for Upper Hunter and shadow Minister for 27724 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Gaming and Racing would have supported this motion had he been present today. However, because he recently had an operation he was not able to contribute to debate on this motion. The Opposition supports the motion moved by the member for Wallsend.
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [12.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Port Stephens, the member for Swansea, the member for Hornsby, the member for Charlestown and the member for Lismore for their contributions to debate on this motion. I am pleased that Opposition members are lending their support to this worthy motion. Those members who contributed to debate congratulated the doctors and nurses in Hunter New England Health, medical and clinical staff throughout New South Wales, and community volunteers who help to raise funds for our hospitals. I echo the sentiments expressed by all members. The member for Port Stephens indicated by way of interjection that he also congratulates our nurses and doctors. I know that staff members at Tomaree Community Hospital also work hard.
Earlier the member for Swansea related an interesting story. I am sure all members hope that Charlotte's finger gets better. The member for Swansea referred to the excellent service that his daughter received when she was admitted to hospital. The Ambulance Service of NSW and the hospitals at Belmont and John Hunter pulled out all stops to reattach Charlotte's finger. I hope that she gets better soon. The member for Hornsby said that Hunter New England Health was an excellent area health service—a statement with which we all agree. All members would be aware of the challenges facing our area health services. I mentioned earlier that they were busy places. An ageing population puts pressure on our health care services—an issue that cannot be ignored.
The member for Charlestown referred to major funding initiatives for Hunter New England Health. We recognise that hospitals cost a lot of money to run and staff must be adequately paid. I concur with the statements made by the member for Charlestown: in future we need major funding initiatives for all our hospitals. I thank the member for Lismore for his contribution, even though he digressed somewhat from the leave of the motion and talked about Lismore Base Hospital, which is not located in the Hunter New England Health area. However, as he said positive things about the nurses and staff at Lismore Base Hospital I did not take issue with his statements. We allowed a little leeway: Labor Party members are well known for their manners and courtesy. Finally, the rostering of nurses is an issue for us all to consider. Nurses are busy people with families and private lives. I look forward to achieving a healthy resolution between the nurses and hospital with respect to a rostering system that suits both parties.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
TEA GARDENS WHARF
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [12.50 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the seriously degraded and unsafe state of the wharf on the Myall River at Tea Gardens;
(2) notes that Great Lakes Council has applied to New South Wales Maritime for funding to assist with the restoration of the wharf; and
(3) calls on the Government to immediately investigate funding assistance to restore the wharf or redevelop a floating pontoon type facility, both for the safety and for the prosperity of the local community.
It is 12 months since I gave notice of this motion. Under this State Labor Government a year-old motion often remains relevant because of the inertia with infrastructure development or any kind of progress. Perhaps for the first time in living memory the issues in motion at least have just about been addressed. When I gave notice of this motion the Tea Gardens wharves were in a state of decay—a symbol of the wider issue of the State Government's neglect of this fabulous area. Two weeks ago I attended the Myall River Festival, which was held on the banks of the Myall River at Tea Gardens, where 130 stallholders offered a variety of services and products. It was a fantastic event and it is evidence of the proactive and dedicated Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest community.
Given that Tea Gardens is located on the Myall River, fully functioning wharves are vital to the local business and tourism industries. Tea Gardens is the gateway to the Myall River and the magnificent Myall 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27725
Lakes system. Recreational boaters often visit Tea Gardens to enjoy the village-type atmosphere of this beautiful riverside town, to enjoy a meal in one of the many restaurants and cafés or stock up on last-minute supplies before heading further north into the lakes system. Unfortunately, many skippers find they are unable to find a spot along the various dilapidated wharves. After navigating the western channel of the lower Myall River they arrive to find a couple of tinnies affixed to the public wharf just far enough apart to make docking impossible. So common was this practice that many boaters avoided this excursion to Tea Gardens and preferred to stay in the main Port Stephens waterway.
The wharves should never have been left to rot into such a state of disrepair. However, after fierce lobbying by the hardworking Myall River Action Group, the Great Lakes Council and me, the State Government directed a grant to Great Lakes Council to install a new floating public wharf at Tea Gardens. Tinnies now are able to tie up on the land side of the pontoon, leaving the river side available for large boats. The floating nature of the pontoon also makes access much safer and causes less damage to boats from tidal movement. I thank and acknowledge the former Minister for Ports and Waterways, the member for Heathcote, for accelerating this grant. When I asked him to chase it up in February his response was, "The cheque is in the mail." Paul is as good as his word and the new wharf is in operation ready for the summer tourist season.
However, this Government must not stop there. Tea Gardens and Hawks Nest is a thriving tourism area and the Government must assist the council and the community to harness and further develop this industry. An obvious requirement is the upgrading of the waterfront. Another five or six floating wharves would be a great improvement. I will fight to achieve this when responsible government returns to New South Wales in 135 days. Boating holidays are hugely popular around the Myall Lakes and Tea Gardens area. Therefore, greater facilities for boating tourists would be an enormous asset to the town. A healthy river system also would be a wonderful asset, although that concept appears to be difficult for this State Government to grasp.
It is now well over two years since I first notified a previous Minister for the Environment about the problems in the Myall River: low salinity, the murky brown water and the red spot disease on fish. The Minister refused to acknowledge the problem until late last year when, after meeting with passionate and dedicated members of the Myall River Action Group, he finally decided to commission a study. That occurred late last year when 8 of 11 oyster farms had closed and feral animals were walking across the once navigable eastern Myall River to the Ramsar-listed Corrie Island, potentially putting at greater risk already endangered bird species.
Apart from the environmental degradation of the Myall River, if the issue is not addressed it will threaten the viability of the tourist industry. The Government disagrees. In answer to a question on notice from me the Minister for Tourism, and Minister for the Hunter advised, "There is no evidence to suggest a downturn in tourism as a result of the health of the river." Of course, the Minister then admitted in answer to another question in January, "In the past 12 months no studies have been conducted to gauge the impact of the Myall River's health on tourism." How can the Minister gauge the impact of the river condition on tourism? We simply cannot afford to wait until tourism is affected in Tea Gardens before something is done.
I call on this Government to be proactive for once rather than reactive and make a real commitment to investing in the tourism industry in Tea Gardens. Fixing the river and embarking on a beautification upgrade of the Tea Gardens waterfront certainly will be my priority as we head towards the 26 March 2011 election. I cannot see any reason for the Government to oppose this motion as paragraphs (1) and (2) are statements of fact and the member for Heathcote as Minister was good enough to intervene and accede to the request made in paragraph (3). However, after nearly four years in this place I—and the people of Port Stephens—am prepared to be disappointed yet again.
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [12.56 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak on this subject because the Government has an impressive record of funding world-class boating infrastructure in New South Wales. I have some familiarity with the Tea Gardens area as I spoke to an earlier motion moved by the member for Port Stephens. I used to go to Tea Gardens as a young lad all the time. My dad grew up at Bungwahl and Bulahdelah and we would go to Port Stephens for our holidays and enjoy the wonderful oysters—which I am sure people still do. My uncles were professional fishermen at Tuggerah Lakes, and when those lakes were without fish they moved up the coast to Lake Macquarie and to Port Stephens. I congratulate the member for Port Stephens, who is a good member, as was his predecessor, but I shall draw his attention to something later in my contribution.
Returning to the Government's impressive record on the funding of world-class boating, world-class infrastructure and some of the best waterways in the world, each year New South Wales Maritime invites 27726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
applications for grants under the Better Boating Program. This program currently provides $5 million per annum in funding, with a total commitment of $25 million commencing 2009-10. Since 1998 the Government has provided over $25 million in grants to fund more than 470 projects across the State. Together with funding contributions for local government and community group projects, the Better Boating Program and its forerunners have enabled over $46 million for investment in recreational boating infrastructure. Projects across the State have included new and refurbished world-class boating infrastructure that include storage racks, large and small boat ramps, jetties, pontoons, vessel sewage pump-out facilities, and car and trailer parking. This is great news for all boaters across New South Wales.
The story about Tea Gardens wharf gives me particular pleasure. The motion of the member for Port Stephens speaks of a degraded and unsafe wharf, of underinvestment by council and of lack of support by Government. The Government would be delighted to support the motion had it not already received an application for funding for which the member thanked the former Minister for Ports and Waterways, Paul McLeay. The member for Port Stephens acknowledged that Paul told him, "The cheque is in the mail." The New South Wales Government received an application for funding, approved an application for funding, and had commenced to work with the council to plan construction that would result in the completion of works. That is right—I notice you appear to be shocked, Madam Deputy-Speaker: the two wharves at Tea Gardens received funding from New South Wales Maritime's Better Boating Program. Work on both wharves has been completed. I acknowledge that members are not permitted to use props, but a recent photograph I am holding up shows Tea Gardens wharf and the extent of the refurbishment that was completed in October this year.
Mr Craig Baumann: Is that your boat on the water?
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: No, that is not my boat. I could suggest whose boat it might be, but I will not do that. The Tea Gardens wharf does not look like a decrepit, degraded or dilapidated wharf to me. It looks like a brand new $160,000 jointly funded triumph for the Great Lakes Council and the New South Wales Labor Government—because that is exactly what it is. The Great Lakes Council received $83,520 from the Better Boating Program and matched that funding to deliver an extended pontoon and enhanced infrastructure for ferries and recreational vessels. But that is not all.
The Government made a further contribution to upgrade a second public wharf at Tea Gardens. In March this year the Great Lakes Council was awarded $20,000 towards the cost of refurbishment of the second wharf. Work was completed in June and included new piles in the front of the wharf, repairs to the substructure, and decking. An existing small pontoon and gangway at the main public wharf was relocated to the new wharf to assist in recreational activities.
I offer the member for Port Stephens the opportunity to amend his motion so that Government members can avoid opposing it. While amending his motion, he may wish to include a congratulatory paragraph commending the New South Wales Government for its fine work of supporting the Great Lakes Council and the people of his electorate.
Mr Steve Whan: We intend to amend it.
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: What a surprise! It seems that someone will be moving an amendment. It is a great pleasure for me to oppose the motion and congratulate the New South Wales Government on the work it has done on the Tea Gardens wharves. How can members of this House be expected to support a motion that calls for funding that has been allocated to work that has already been completed?
Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.01 p.m.]: My colleague already has pointed out a number of inaccuracies in the motion. The glaring errors are such that we suppose the member for Port Stephens has not been a recent visitor to the area. Perhaps the photograph I am holding will help to refresh his memory and increase his understanding.
Mr Craig Baumann: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. If members opposite had listened to what I said, instead of reading from prepared material, they would know that the notice of the motion was given 12 months ago. I visited the area two weeks ago and walked on the pontoon. I am very well aware of the redevelopment.
Mr Steve Whan: Good point of order. We should thank him for that, Madam Deputy-Speaker, I would imagine. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27727
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Was the member's point of order relevance?
Mr Craig Baumann: Absolutely.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the member for Shellharbour. I am sure she will take your comments on board.
Ms LYLEA McMAHON: I will. In fact, I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:
this House:
(1) notes that the seriously degraded wharf on the Myall River at Tea Gardens has been replaced with a floating pontoon type facility courtesy of a grant from the Government;
(2) congratulates the local boating community, council and the Government; and
(3) congratulates the Government on its continued investment in boating and fishing facilities around New South Wales.
More than $220,000 has been spent at Tea Gardens to upgrade and refurbish the public wharves for the entire boating community. The provision of this great waterways infrastructure for families and fishers does not stop in the electorate of Port Stephens. It extends throughout the State. Recently I opened a new jetty and boat ramp in my electorate and a floating pontoon at Reddall Reserve. Those two projects were possible only because of funding programs from New South Wales Maritime, particularly the Better Boating Program.
Since 1998 NSW Maritime funding programs, most recently the Better Boating Program, have enabled more than 470 projects to be completed resulting in total expenditure in excess of $46 million. In 2009-10 alone, $2.4 million went towards nine Sydney Harbour boat ramp projects while $2.9 million was directed towards 57 projects across regional New South Wales. Examples of projects that received funding are $768,493 for a major boat ramp parking upgrade at Taplin Park, Drummoyne; $409,397 for new facilities at Davidson Park boat ramp, Killarney Heights; $194,000 for a major upgrade to the Karuah regional boat ramp at Karuah; $100,000 for a new pontoon facility in Ulladulla Harbour; and $120,000 for a wharf and pontoon facility at Harwood on the Clarence River.
These projects directly benefit boaters by providing safer and more convenient access to our waterways. Those benefits flow on to local communities and businesses because they help underpin local tourism and recreational activities. The Better Boating Program is an ongoing program and currently provides $5 million in funding per annum, with a total commitment of $25 million over five years. Applications are assessed by a panel that includes representatives of boating and stakeholder groups and are judged on criteria chosen to encourage better and safer access to waterways. Applications closed in August for the regional and Sydney Harbour boat ramp grants for 2010-11.
New grants will be announced later this year. This is a great example of a partnership between the State Government and councils, other State agencies, boating organisations and community groups to deliver new and upgraded facilities in areas of highest need and demand. With a great initiative such as the Better Boating Program, perhaps the member could use his time more productively by working with boaters and councils to identify new opportunities for boating infrastructure in his electorate.
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.06 p.m.]: Although I have some sympathy for the member for Port Stephens in relation to the content of his motion and the timing of this debate, the issue has been made more relevant by the amendment moved by the member for Shellharbour. Ultimately the resolution of the House will be factual and relevant in the context of the message it sends to the community. It was very pleasing to hear the extent of investment by the New South Wales Government in maritime facilities, particularly wharves on our waterways.
I can certainly see from the photographs that have been referred to that the wharves at Tea Gardens provide fantastic facilities. However, the Government's program of refurbishing maritime facilities extends more broadly. For example, the Government has made significant investment in Lake Macquarie, ranging from the provision of wharves and public swimming pools to refurbishment and stabilisation of foreshore areas. For very good reasons, the Government has invested a tremendous amount of money in aquatic facilities. Quality maritime facilities are hugely beneficial to the community. 27728 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
It is very pleasing that Tea Gardens has been fortunate enough to have had refurbishment work undertaken on two wharves and it seems that there will be more good news for the Tea Gardens community as time passes. I have fond memories of the Tea Gardens area. When I was a youngster—I still consider myself a youngster—many of my family holidays were spent at Tea Gardens. I know firsthand how special and unique Tea Gardens, the Port Stephens area and the aquatic environment are, and I am acutely aware of the need to look after the environment and public infrastructure facilities for the benefit of future generations.
Port Stephens and the Hunter region have excellent tourism track records and benefit greatly from investment in tourism facilities. All Hunter region local government areas offer tourists attractive destinations and high standards of accommodation and facilities. Because all Hunter region local government areas have something wonderful to offer tourists—vineyards, lakes, beaches and Port Stephens waterways—the region is suitable for holiday packages. The attractions complement each other. Everyone in the region benefits from that tourism spend. It is important to reinvest in public infrastructure—in this case, upgrading wharves for boat users in and around those aquatic environments.
I thank the member for Port Stephens for drawing attention to the fact that the Tea Gardens wharf has been upgraded. That project has been successful in terms of providing benefits to the public. I am not sure who owns the boat illustrated in the picture. If the member knows the answer, perhaps he will share it with us. Certainly, the Tea Gardens wharf is there for the greater public benefit. In the future the member may have his boat tied up at the wharf. Although he has not extended an invitation to members, I would be happy to spend time on the waterways with him so that we can share the good news about what is happening in Port Stephens as part of the Government's commitment to aquatic services and infrastructure not only in Port Stephens but across the Hunter region. I am pleased about the good news and the good work done by local organisations and councils in conjunction with the Government to put such facilities in place.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [1.11 p.m.]: I was listening to the debate in my office and I felt the need to come into the Chamber and support the member for Port Stephens on what was an important motion at the time he gave notice of it 12 months ago. As we know, Parliament sits for a limited number of days. Often debates in this place are adjourned so that the Government can carry out its business, and opportunities for private members' bills or motions are delayed. That is the case with this motion. While I was listening I heard the member for Shellharbour move an amendment to congratulate the Government. I distinctly recall hearing the member for Port Stephens acknowledge the work of the Minister in his contribution.
Ms Lylea McMahon: He can accept the amendment!
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: Government members have become so pedantic. I cannot believe how miserable they have become in the past few months. The member for Port Stephens acknowledged that he gave notice of his motion 12 months ago. At that time he called on the Government to immediately investigate funding assistance to restore Tea Gardens wharf and to develop it into a floating pontoon. The member also acknowledged that that has been done. I say to the member for Port Stephens: well done for standing up for your community! He acknowledged that the Minister supplied the funding to build the pontoon. I understand that two weeks ago the member had the opportunity to walk on the pontoon—he was aware of it. All this miserable tripe being conjured up by members opposite about the actions of the member for Port Stephens is appalling.
I cannot believe that debates in this place have reached such a low point. The member acknowledged that his motion is old. He then acknowledged that the government of the day took action; and he acknowledged the involvement of the Minister, his staff and others to bring about an improvement for the Tea Gardens community. Tea Gardens is a beautiful part of the Port Stephens electorate. Then the member for Shellharbour moved an amendment to the motion. To move an amendment after the member for Port Stephens congratulated the Government was a miserable act. The people of Tea Gardens and Port Stephens have a hardworking local member. It is a pity that members opposite have not been as successful as he has. The member for Port Stephens was successful in getting the Tea Gardens wharf, and members opposite simply want to tear him down. I am disappointed in the Government.
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [1.14 p.m.], in reply: It is customary to thank the member for Camden, the member for Shellharbour and the member for Charlestown, but I will thank the member for Wagga Wagga. As I said at the outset, I gave notice of this motion exactly 12 months ago. Parliament sits on 48 days a year. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27729
Mr Matthew Morris: It's 63 actually.
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN: Okay, we have clayton's sitting days. I acknowledged the Minister's assistance. I told the House that I had walked on the wharf two weeks ago when I was at the Myall River Festival. The Minister flashed a photograph showing his boat moored at the wharf.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Stephens does not need the assistance of Government or Opposition members.
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN: At the end of the day the amendment shows that Government members are out of touch. I am happy to thank the Minister for his involvement. I am happy to say that all three items in the motion have been attended to, in the Government's terms, in a speedy manner. Anything the Government can do within 12 months is pretty good; that is rocket speed for this Government. Members opposite have conveniently forgotten that the Myall River is still dying and dingoes are still walking across what was a navigable waterway onto a Ramsar-protected wetland.
Mr Steve Whan: That's not in your motion.
Mr CRAIG BAUMANN: It is not in my motion, but it is part of the threat to the tourism industry in the Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest area. The local media will observe the Government's amendment with great interest and, frankly, disgust. I encourage the Government to withdraw its amendment and support the motion, but knowing how petulant members opposite are I do not think that will happen.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion as amended agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1098 withdrawn by Mr Geoff Corrigan.
[The Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.18 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.
Government Business Notices of Motions (Business with Precedence) given.
[During the giving of notices of motions.]
The SPEAKER: Order! This is a reform that everybody supports.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [2.22 p.m.]: I seek leave to suspend standing orders to bring on the notice of motion of the Premier so that it may be debated and voted upon.
Leave not granted.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. 27730 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Conduct of Business
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 97, which refers to the House conducting its business on a general business day. At 1.15 p.m. today the House was adjourned for lunch—prior to 1.30 p.m.—with absolutely no explanation. The member for Manly was ready to debate his general business notice of motion, which will now drop off the Business Paper because of the one-year rule. The Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair. I know she does not have much experience because she does not necessarily turn up, but it was completely out of order. Members were unable to exercise their rights to private member's business as provided for under the standing orders.
The SPEAKER: Order! I undertake to the member for Murrumbidgee that I will investigate the matter and report back to him on it.
QUESTION TIME ______
[Question time commenced at 2.23 p.m.]
ELECTRICITY ASSETS SALE
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Now that two so-called vulture funds from the United States, specialising in distressed companies and rescue financing, are looking at buying New South Wales electricity assets, will the Premier admit that her gentrader model is flawed, or that the billions of taxpayer dollars likely to be lost will become her and Joe Tripodi's lasting legacy to this State?
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The Government is committed to energy reform, which is essential to economic prosperity and our everyday lives. We are reforming our electricity market to attract new entrants who will bring additional resources and competition to the electricity sector while keeping vital assets in public hands. The poles and wires will remain in public ownership, as will our generators, while the riskier trading of electricity will be contracted to the private sector. Our reforms encourage investment, which will deliver the reliable supply of electricity that our businesses and families will need in future years. The additional investment will create a market, which will carefully balance our energy needs and respond to the challenges of climate change as we transition to a low carbon future. The New South Wales Government's energy reforms are on track to be completed by the end of the year. The Opposition's track record when it comes to reforms should be examined. On 29 August 2008 Barry O'Farrell told ABC TV Stateline:
The one guarantee the public have is that before the next election they'll have our detailed energy policy.
On 20 May 2009 Mike Baird was asked on radio 2UE about the Opposition's policy on electricity reform. He said:
We will be very clear with the electorate. There will be a very clear policy and we certainly haven't ruled out private sector involvement in that.
Yet when asked by Lisa Murray from the Australian Financial Review what the Liberal's election policy was, Mr Baird said:
It's very hard to articulate ...
Of course it is very hard to articulate. It is very hard for the Opposition to articulate any particular policy, much less one—
Mr Mike Baird: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order. I will call him to order for a second time if he keeps interjecting.
Mr Mike Baird: We have had a few minutes. The Premier has not addressed the vulture funds. If vulture funds are looking at this, they are giving away billions and billions of dollars. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27731
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Manly will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: If I were the member for Manly I would not speak about things financial. We all know about Waratah bonds. He has admitted that Waratah bonds will raise the cost of government financing.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Manly to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Of course, it is very hard for the member for Manly, or any member opposite, to articulate a clear policy on electricity reform because they cannot articulate a policy on any part of their election platform. Sixty-five pages of platitudes come out in a document and still we are nowhere near Mr O'Farrell's commitment made in 2008 to put before the electorate the Coalition's detailed energy policy.
SEXUAL AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
Ms LYLEA McMAHON: My question is addressed to the Premier. How is the New South Wales Government addressing sexual and family violence and supporting its victims?
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I thank the member for Shellharbour for her question. Any violence within our communities is a breach of trust, but family and sexual violence breaches that trust within the intimacy of our homes and the sanctity of our families and relationships. I am certain that all members would agree that preventing and addressing these crimes that devastate families and young lives is of paramount importance.
Today the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments released our response to the report co-authored by the Australian and New South Wales law reform commissions on family violence and child protection. The report highlights the hard work we have done in New South Wales to reform the way our courts deal with victims of sexual crimes and how laws protect our women and children. Our efforts include the Sexual Assault Task Force report in 2006, the Sentencing Council reforms to sexual offences in 2008, the landmark report of the Wood Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Care and Protection in 2009 and our response through the $750 million Keep Them Safe Program, which released its inaugural annual report yesterday. We have transformed the way children are cared for and protected following former Justice James Wood's recommendations. Keep Them Safe marked the beginning of a new era in collaboration and partnership between government, community organisations and individuals. Already that collaboration is showing results.
In regard to sexual assault, New South Wales now places the concerns of the victim at the centre of the justice system, giving them rights to special protections in court, such as the use of closed-circuit television [CCTV] and stopping cross-examination from the accused in person, as well as putting a definition of consent in black and white in the law for the first time. It is these landmark reforms which the law reform commissions have taken note of and used to map out the future of child care and protection and sexual assault law across Australia. This report makes a number of recommendations to the Australian States and Territories. One of the most important of the major reforms outlined in the report—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call. I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: As I was saying, one of the most important of the major reforms outlined in the report is the establishment of the family violence courts.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order for the second time.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I will repeat that for the benefit of the member for Hawkesbury. He may be interested in family violence courts. The New South Wales Government welcomes this recommendation in principle and members will be interested to hear that we have established a working group to examine the implementation of family violence courts in New South Wales. The working group will also examine a related proposal to establish specialist sexual assault courts in New South Wales. I am sure all members will be pleased to note in the report that the law commissions have recognised that New South Wales has, on many fronts, been leading the way in our legal and judicial approaches to child protection and sexual assault.
New South Wales laws in these areas are singled out as a basis for many of the report's recommendations and while I am pleased to be able to inform the House of this, I can only remark that this is a 27732 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
small achievement within a battle from which we cannot divert our focus. I acknowledge the work of the Australian and New South Wales law reform commissions and assure the House that the Government will maintain its focus on this critical issue that goes to the right of our children and families to be raised in safe and secure environments.
MOBILE SPEED CAMERAS
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. As the Minister said yesterday he had "no doubt" that the number of locations at which motorists can be caught by mobile speed cameras will change, will he now come clean with the motoring public and admit that he is planning to increase them by almost seven times, to 1,000, despite failing to provide any evidence they are anything more than a sneaky way to line the Government's pockets?
Mr DAVID BORGER: I commend the Leader of The Nationals for watching the television news and then pursuing an issue. It used to be the other way around, but he seems to favour a strategy that involves less effort. The Government's mobile speed camera enforcement program was laid out in full in a media release dated 29 March 2010. It was a two-and-a-half page statement, so the member may not have made it all the way through, but I will happily provide him with a copy. I can further advise the House that no sites or vehicles will be signed off until the tender and related contracting processes are finalised, which I do not believe will be until about April 2011.
I note that the expansion of the program will not take effect until July 2011. Perhaps by July 2011 we will learn a little more about Andrew's proposals to introduce congestion charging across Sydney; provide free driving lessons to young people that might be paid for by insurance companies or might be paid for by those young people—the lessons might be free but they might have to pay for them; give licence discounts to people who have not driven for five years; and cancel the M2 upgrade contract and pick up the $550 million tab. Maybe we will get a few answers to those questions, but frankly I doubt it.
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr NICK LALICH: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Premier on Veterans' Affairs. How is the New South Wales Government commemorating Remembrance Day?
Mr FRANK TERENZINI: I thank the member for Cabramatta for his question, which is highly relevant on such a significant day in Australia's military history. A few hours ago I joined the Premier and many people of all generations at the Martin Place Cenotaph to pay tribute to the tens of thousands of Australians who lost their lives in all wars and peacekeeping operations. Its main purpose was to remember the most brutal war of them all. At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month we as a nation pause to remember the official end of the Great War of 1918, a war of such brutality and a war that remains our most costly in terms of lives lost and casualties suffered. At a time when our population was fewer than five million, more than 60,000 Australians were killed on foreign soil and 156,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner.
Following those horrific losses in World War I, communities across Australia were driven by grief to demonstrate their gratitude to the fallen and to immortalise the sacrifice of fathers, sons, relatives and friends by building monuments in every city and town. To this day there are more than 3,000 memorials in New South Wales and many of them have stood for more than 90 years. They range from large public monuments, memorial spaces and sculptures to indoor fixtures such as honour boards, plaques and busts. No memorial is too small or insignificant; they all count as an important record of immeasurable sacrifice. But the passage of time since the end of the Great War has taken its toll on many of these memorials and it is our responsibility as a Government, and our responsibility as grateful Australians, to ensure the monuments survive for all time.
That is why in 2008 our Government established the Community War Memorials Fund to assist local councils, the Returned and Services League and other community organisations to restore war memorials in our towns and suburbs. An allocation of $250,000 is provided every year to ensure that local communities are able to maintain these memorials and perpetuate the memory of the priceless sacrifices made for our freedom. The State War Memorials Committee was formed to assess applications twice a year, with grant receipts announced around Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. To ensure that communities are appropriately represented, committee members include the President of the New South Wales Returned and Services League, the President of the Shires Association and senior representatives from the New South Wales Government Architect's Office and the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which administers the fund. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27733
Since its implementation, the Community War Memorials Fund has provided moneys to more than 96 projects to help preserve these monuments. On this Remembrance Day, $105,600 has been approved for 16 restoration projects, including the raising in height of the bronze statue of two soldiers, one Australian and one Vietnamese, at the Vietnam War Comradeship Memorial at Cabravale. The memorial represents the mateship shared by the Australian and South Vietnamese soldiers during the 10 long years of the Vietnam War. Grants have also been made for restoration works to Mount Victoria War Memorial, the War Memorial Gates at Nowra Showground, Gladesville Public School Garden of Peace, the war memorial fountain in Central Park, Armidale, Raymond Terrace War Memorial, and preservation of the World War II artillery piece at Berowra War Memorial.
The Government will also assist the upgrade of the forecourt of the Goulburn Rocky Hill Memorial Tower, its parking area and pathways, to improve access for elderly and disabled veterans and their families. Monies have been allocated for relocation of Euston War Memorial to a new park dedicated to commemoration, the cleaning and refurbishment of plaques at Sandakan Memorial in Burwood Park, and a security upgrade to Katoomba Community War Memorial following recent vandalism to the bollard lighting surrounding the cenotaph. We have also allocated funds for the addition of a plinth to Campbelltown War Memorial at Mawson Park to commemorate military forces who have served in the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and during numerous peacekeeping operations. The fund will support the addition of plinths to the 38 trees planted at See Memorial Park, Railwaytown, to commemorate by name fallen soldiers from Broken Hill in the Great War.
Junee Shire Council will receive money for roof refurbishment at the Junee Cenotaph. The Greta RSL sub-branch will receive funding for a Wall of Remembrance at Greta War Memorial. Cowra RSL sub-branch has also been funded for the provision of two plaques and a flagpole at its National Servicemen's Memorial at Squire Park, Cowra. This Government's ongoing funding commitment will ensure that the memorials that were built on the emotion of a grateful nation will preserve as tangible evidence the sacrifices of previous generations for the freedom of future generations.
MEMBER FOR FAIRFIELD
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that she praised the record of delivery of the member for Fairfield, was she referring to his record with the Orange Grove affair, or the Cross City Tunnel—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kogarah will cease interjecting. I urge the member for Terrigal to read his question quickly.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: —or was she referring to the botched sale of electricity, his $300,000 farewell trip, his involvement in leadership coups and his numerous appearances before the Independent Commission Against Corruption?
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House will come to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I acknowledge the work of the member for Fairfield who has earned the respect of his community time and again by delivering for the people of western Sydney.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I acknowledge his work on energy reform, the Hunter Coal Export Agreement, and some of the most significant reforms to public housing since World War II which reshaped public housing. Opposition members should hang their heads in shame for putting out a 65-page policy document that does not even mention social housing. This Government introduced changes to deliver a fairer public housing system under the Federal economic stimulus plan. New South Wales leads the nation in rolling out thousands of new homes for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Opposition members put out a policy statement that does not even mention social housing.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Kogarah to order. I call the member for Terrigal to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Some information has just come to hand. Let me quote what the Leader of the Opposition said back in 1999. 27734 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: In 1999, the Leader of the Opposition said:
You cannot expect to select quality candidates if your local organisation is factionalised.
He then said:
In my first speech to you as Leader I reflected on the damage internal party disputes cause.
He went on to state:
As leader I can't allow our party to continue along a self-destructive course and it is my responsibility as Leader to do all in my power to change things.
Has anything changed in the factionalised war-torn Liberal Party? Not at all!
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Just this morning one of two favourites for Liberal Party preselection for the State seat of Hornsby—apparently it is a safe seat but that may no longer be the case—resigned from the Liberal Party saying that factional fighting had forced him out. Factional fighting forced out the Mayor of Hornsby. This is not just any member: high-profile member Nick Berman, the Mayor of Hornsby, was forced out of the Liberal Party. The Leader of the Opposition cannot control factional infighting in the Liberal Party. Nick Berman, or Mayor Berman, a former member of the Liberal Party, told the Sydney Morning Herald that he had been disadvantaged by a deal between the soft right and moderate factions which had combined in an effort to defeat him in the preselection. He said that the groups had worked ''right across the division to disadvantage anyone who is not part of this alliance''. Mayor Berman, a former member of the Liberal Party, wrote a letter in which he said:
Over the past three years I've found the NSW Liberal Party to be an increasingly insular, out of touch and poll driven organisation, with those in positions of authority willing to do whatever it takes to get the internal outcomes they desire.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House will come to order.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kogarah will contain herself.
Mr Andrew Stoner: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. Clearly the question that was asked related to the impressive track record of the member for Fairfield and I want to hear about it.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bathurst will cease interjecting. I call the member for Blacktown to order. Given the nature of the question, I will hear further from the Premier.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Mayor Berman, a former member of the Liberal Party, goes on to state:
Ordinary people would not want anything to do with an organisation under the control of ruling elites who put their factional interests ahead of the Liberal Party ...
Mr Berman then said:
Branch stacking has become the weapon of factional warlords intent on seizing the Liberal brand.
He said:
Unfortunately a party which should be a bastion of Australian democracy has been hijacked by a ruling factional elite. And those charged with the custody—
I assume that he means the Leader of the Opposition—
of its traditions have either succumbed to these powerful interests or are indifferent to the consequences such unrepresentative politics delivers to our communities. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27735
What a damning indictment of factional infighting, of the influence of the hard Right or the soft Right. I cannot keep track of how many factions there are.
Mr John Williams: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Miranda to order.
Mr John Williams: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. Does the Premier not have anything nice to say?
The SPEAKER: Order! Questions of this nature do no service to the Parliament. The member for Kogarah will cease interjecting.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I am happy to go on and to talk about the Castle Hill preselection and the stunning loss of 37-year-old hedge fund manager Ashley Pittard—a man who donated $360,000 to the Liberal Party in an attempt to buy his way into preselection. A little birdie told me—and I do not know whether or not this is true—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The member for Epping will come to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: A little birdie told me that the Leader of the Opposition did a ring around trying to get branch members to back Mr Pittard in his preselection.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: It isn't true.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I do not know. Maybe someone should tell the Leader of the Opposition that he should always back the winner. Despite Mr Pittard's $360,000 donation, he was not preselected by the Liberal Party for the seat of Castle Hill.
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Opposition members really do not like hearing about this, do they?
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Terrigal to order for the second time.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Mr Pittard's supporters were shocked and dumbfounded that he was defeated 51 to 44 by Dominic Perottet. Of course, they were shocked and dumbfounded. They had invested $360,000 in trying to buy their seat. Liberal Party sources in the seat of Castle Hill said:
Dominic had no community backing. We feel if Ashley had won, it would have put to bed local infighting. The reality is with Dominic in, it's on the increase.
In 1999 Mr O'Farrell says it is his responsibility as leader to put an end to factional infighting. In 2010 the rampant infighting across the seats continues in the Liberal Party. I am sure there is more to come.
Mr Tony Stewart: Point of order: I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct the photographer not to take photographs of people not participating in the debate.
The SPEAKER: Order! Photographers are given access to the Chamber in accordance with our policy, which contains strict criteria, including that they can photograph only members at the lectern.
Mr Gerard Martin: They abuse it.
The SPEAKER: Order! I will investigate the matter.
POLICE NUMBERS
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Would the Minister update the House on the increase in the authorised strength of the New South Wales Police Force? 27736 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I thank the member for Londonderry for his question and the interest in police he has always shown. I apologise in advance to members of The Nationals, as I have five minutes to deliver a hell of a lot of good news so I will have to speak quickly. It was my great pleasure this morning, along with Commissioner Andrew Scipione, to announce a further permanent increase in the authorised strength of the New South Wales Police Force by adding an additional 250 officers, who will come on line on 1 January 2011. This brings total police numbers to 15,806.
Mr Andrew Fraser: How many are on sick leave?
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member will be thanking me in a minute. This makes New South Wales the fourth-largest Police Force in the English-speaking world and the largest Police Force in the Southern Hemisphere. We added 750 officers before the 2007 election and we promised another 750 by December 2011. This latest addition will mean we have delivered 600 officers. We are on track. I emphasise that this is an increase in the authorised base strength of the Police Force, not simply a matter of replacing officers who have left. This is a further instalment in this Government's commitment to create an additional 750 positions by December 2011. As I have said, we delivered 750 before the last election.
This means that since 1994 Labor has increased the strength of the New South Wales Police Force by almost 23 per cent when the State's population grew by only 6 per cent. The people on this side of the House have increased the New South Wales Police Force at four times the growth rate of the general population of the State. We are very proud of that achievement. Today I announced the further allocation of 250 officers. The police determined this allocation based on where they were needed most.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Marginal seats.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member for Murrumbidgee says "marginal seats".
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Correct.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: He will be made a fool of in a minute, but that will not be the first or the last time. The allocation was based on where those officers were needed the most, according to an analysis of case workloads, crime patterns, changing demographics and other factors. In New South Wales, this Government allows the experts to make the call on policing—that is, the police. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and others on that side of the House who want to tell the police how to do their job. These experts are people such as the Orana Local Area Commander Superintendent Stan Single, who was quoted in the Dubbo Daily Liberal on 15 July stating:
Orana LAC adequately responds to calls for service ... The numbers we get we effectively work with.
And so they do. In the same article, the Opposition spokesperson was caught second-guessing the police. In recommending the need for another four officers at Wellington, the Dubbo Daily Liberal noted that Mr Gallacher "promised a review of every police station and position in New South Wales if he became Minister." Oh, oh! That rings alarm bells for everyone wearing a police uniform. The experts on that side of the House will look at the allocation model and not listen to the police. Those opposite are going to have their own allocation model—a political model.
Later that week, on 19 July, the Wellington Times reported that the Opposition police spokesperson went on to outline that a "better allocation model would boost regional numbers overall". How so, and based on what analysis? It is based on an arrogant assumption that the police have got it wrong, that they do not know how to respond to crime and do not know how to allocate models. The Opposition will allocate police by ministerial decree. The big walloper from Ku-ring-gai, Bumper O'Farrell, will be telling Commissioner Scipione how to do his job—an arrogant and extremely dangerous method.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: Forget about crime patterns and information from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, ignore the experts, and just do what their mates in politics want. It will be a very unstable workplace for all who work in the New South Wales Police Force. Opposition members might want to listen. Mr Cansdell, the member for Clarence, will be interested in this information. I am pleased to report that 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27737
the allocation of the 250 extra officers means that from 1 January 2011, there will be 77 additional general duties officers and 70 additional detective positions allocated to local area commands in all six police regions where they are needed most.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to the length of the answer. The Minister said his answer would be five minutes. He has taken five minutes already and has not even started to answer the question. Given the new paradigm we are about to enter in this Parliament for the final two weeks of sittings this year, I ask that he be directed to conclude his answer.
The SPEAKER: Order! I will do so when the motion of which the Premier gave notice today is passed.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member for Clarence wants me to point out that this time the Coffs-Clarence Local Area Command will top the allocation table with 12 additional police officers, including eight additional detective and four general duties police. That is a significant increase. The Oxley Local Area Command will receive six officers, including an allocation from the December graduation, three detectives and three general duties officers. I am pleased to announce that in addition to the 100 Highway Patrol officers brought on before the election, we are bringing another 50 new positions to the Highway Patrol under Assistant Commissioner Hartley. That will free up the 50 officer positions that were brought in from local area commands across the State to Strike Force Taipan. Those officers will return to the 50 State local area commands. That represents a double effect allocation of 50 officers.
The specialist operations commands will receive an additional 53 positions: 12 more in the Sex Crimes Squad to deal with the lowlifes they encounter, and 21 in the Joint Investigation Response Squad to ensure better protection for abused children. This allocation is in addition to a further 20 positions in specialist commands and elite units to target organised crime, including gang activity. I take this opportunity again to thank the police who, with record spending from this Government's investment in technology and new powers, are doing an unprecedented job resulting in the best crime statistics: 17 out of 17 major crime categories falling and stable across the State.
HOSPITAL SECURITY
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Why did she sack the whistleblower who called to alert her to the questionable security practices in western Sydney hospitals where patients and staff were being put at risk by underqualified and inexperienced security guards?
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the member for North Shore for her question. This is an important issue and I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide the House with more information. Nonetheless, I would caution the member for North Shore not to necessarily believe everything that she sees in a newspaper as written, as it is not always the full story.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The member for North Shore will cease interjecting.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The safety of patients, their visitors and staff who work in our public hospitals is of paramount importance to the Government. We have a zero-tolerance approach to violence in our hospitals and facilities to make sure patients can be cared for and staff work in a safe environment. At the same time we recognise that hospitals exist to help people become well, and that for patients and their carers we need to maintain a balance between hospital security and an environment that fosters healing and recovery.
To support our approach, the provision of professional security staff is one of several strategies used by hospitals to ensure the safety of staff and patients. I am advised that all permanent security guards at Blacktown and Cumberland hospitals hold a minimum of a class 1A security license. It is important that an appropriate level of security staff is continuously provided in our hospitals. That is why the Sydney West Area Health Service uses a security contractor to provide guards for short-term relief to the security department.
All contract security guards providing short-term relief also at minimum hold class 1A licences. Contract guards work closely with permanent security staff to ensure that work undertaken is in accordance with local processes and procedures. Earlier this year, the Health Services Union and area security managers expressed a number of workplace issues, and Sydney West is actively addressing those issues. 27738 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
I am advised that following discussions and consultation with the contract security company, Sydney West requested that the contract security company not allocate provisionally licensed security officers to Sydney West Area Health Service hospitals. I am further advised that no provisionally licensed contract security officers have worked at Blacktown or Cumberland hospitals in the last six months. The security contractor has advised Sydney West Area Health Service that their records confirm that no provisionally licensed contract officers have been deployed to Blacktown or Cumberland hospitals in the last six months.
ADULT COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr PAUL PEARCE: I address my question to the Minister for Education and Training. How is the New South Wales Government supporting adult community education throughout New South Wales?
Ms VERITY FIRTH: I thank the member for Coogee for his question. I am pleased to advise the House that recently I announced $15.9 million in funding for community colleges, which means that 34 regional and 15 metropolitan colleges will benefit. This includes the CityEast Community College that is active in the member for Coogee's electorate and will receive nearly $300,000.
In 2011, this almost $16 million commitment will enable community colleges to deliver more than 4.6 million hours of training to approximately 170,000 students. Colleges will also provide an additional 1.5 million hours of training in general education to support community health, development and wellbeing. As part of our investment, $10.7 million has been allocated for the delivery of vocational training across rural and regional New South Wales, including some of the most disadvantaged areas of the State. The additional $5.2 million was allocated through an application process and will be used by the successful community colleges to implement initiatives such as social inclusion programs. Under these programs the colleges will deliver targeted training and support to those who experience barriers to training and employment.
Education is the great equaliser in an often unequal world. That is why the New South Wales Government is so committed to community education in our State. Community colleges assist people to acquire new skills that will enable them to get a job or progress their careers. Increased adult participation in learning and work cannot be achieved without strong emphasis on community education opportunities as pathways to formal training.
The New South Wales Government recognises the strengths of adult and community colleges in forming community partnerships, supporting skills development in regional economies, and finding flexible and adaptive approaches to education and training. They play a key role in closing the gap between those who are skills rich and those who are skills poor. Our network of community colleges reaches into local communities across the State, delivering education and training that complements the role of TAFE New South Wales and private training organisations.
Community colleges have a strong record in supporting socially inclusive training. For example, there is strong participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who account for 2.5 per cent of students in New South Wales community colleges compared with this group representing 1.6 per cent of the total New South Wales population. Unemployed people are also well represented among community college enrolments. They constitute 12.9 per cent of the student population in comparison with 5.2 per cent of the general population of our State. Each year more than one-third of the language, literacy and numeracy students enrolled in community colleges are unemployed.
Our nearly $16 million commitment adds to $72 million that the New South Wales Government already has provided to community colleges over the past five years. The training offered by community colleges makes a substantial contribution to the economic growth and development of New South Wales. Across the State, community colleges are helping people to acquire new skills to get a job or progress their careers. The work of community colleges plays an important part in the continuing development of the skilled workforce that is so necessary for a strong and productive New South Wales economy. That is why the Government has thrown its support behind community colleges.
FORBES AND PARKES HOSPITALS
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Last week, the Hon. Duncan Gay, MLC, issued a media release causing public mischief by implying that no funds were allocated for the planning of Forbes and Parkes hospitals. Will she update the House on the present situation regarding Forbes and Parkes hospitals? 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27739
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Some of the language in that question is inappropriate.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: This is suddenly very interesting. Whenever the Leader of the House rises to speak, the House does not seem quite so interested.
The SPEAKER: Order! I listened carefully to the member's question.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: "Public mischief" conveys the suggestion of something illegal.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. I have extended a degree of latitude in the asking of questions. The member for Murrumbidgee will not debate the ruling of the Chair. The question is in order. I always allow Opposition and non-Government members appropriate latitude in their questions.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Always?
The SPEAKER: Always. I will not debate the matter. The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: The term "public mischief" conveys the suggestion of illegal activity.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. I urge the member to read some of the questions he has asked that contain inflammatory language. I have allowed his questions on the basis of the Chair's discretion. If the member would prefer me to adopt a strict interpretation of all questions, I would be happy to do so.
Mr Chris Hartcher: To the point of order: The allegation of "public mischief" is an allegation of a criminal offence.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal will resume his seat. I ask the member for Dubbo to repeat the question.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Last week, the Hon. Duncan Gay, MLC, issued a media release causing public mischief by implying that no funds were allocated for the planning of Forbes and Parkes hospitals. Will she update the House on the present situation regarding Forbes and Parkes hospitals?
The SPEAKER: Order! Will the member replace the term "mischief" with "concern"?
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: Yes, I will.
The SPEAKER: I ask the member to restate her question in order.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Last week, the Hon. Duncan Gay, MLC, issued a media release causing public concern by implying that no funds were allocated for the planning of Forbes and Parkes hospitals. Will she update the House on the present situation regarding Forbes and Parkes hospitals?
Mr Brad Hazzard: Further to the point of order: While your suggestion to change "mischief" to "concern" was excellent, it is still, by definition—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr Brad Hazzard: —asking for an opinion, and under Standing Order 128 you must rule it out of order.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. 27740 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Mr Brad Hazzard: With all the things you propose to allow, it strongly suggests biased decision making.
The SPEAKER: Order! I urge the member to read the question or to listen to the question, which we have heard three times. I have to say the question is far more moderate than almost any of the questions asked by the Opposition. I will not take any more points of order on this matter. The member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order—
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Coffs Harbour rise on a new point of order?
Mr Andrew Fraser: It is a new point of order.
The SPEAKER: What is the member's new point of order?
Mr Andrew Fraser: I draw your attention to Standing Order 128 (3) which states:
Questions should not ask for …
(d) confirmation or rumour or media reports.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The day I rule a question out of order because the community has expressed concerns will be the day we will not be conducting question time! There is no point of order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I welcome the opportunity to put at rest any concern there might be that there is no funding source for planning works for the Parks and Forbes hospitals. Despite the mock indignation from members opposite, the reality is that the community is concerned about this important issue. The people of Parkes and Forbes have been misled by the member in the other place. I am pleased to remind the House that the 2010-11 budget included $150,000 to undertake strategic planning work for the health services provided to the people of Parkes and Forbes.
[Interruption]
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can laugh, but that is more than any amount to which she has committed. Indeed, it is more than what is in the Coalition's policy, which is only one page long. This planning work will look at the most efficient and effective way to arrange services between the existing facilities, including networking with Dubbo and Orange base hospitals, as part of the new Western Local Health Network. Health Infrastructure has appointed Berino Projects to undertake this work. It will commence in coming weeks, and will be completed in mid-2011. The Greater Western Area Health Service will work with the consultants to complete initial surveys, fact finding and analysis in consultation with key stakeholders, including clinicians and community representatives. I want to be clear: the Government remains committed to upgrading the health facilities that service Parkes and Forbes. That commitment is clearly demonstrated by this funding. The Nationals attempted to mislead the community about the source of funding. It is a sad day when The Nationals are so desperate for a cheap headline that they attack funding for Parkes and Forbes.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The Minister has embarked on an attack on a member of the other place and The Nationals in particular. Standing Order 73 states:
Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members of either House are disorderly other than by substantive motion.
If the Minister wants to debate the matter she should bring on a debate.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals might want to read the question the member for Murrumbidgee asked today. There is no point of order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I can advise members that the $150,000 provided to this work is part of the general allocation of the 2010-11 Health budget for health infrastructure and to plan capital works. I am also pleased to advise the House that this work is part of our record commitment to regional and rural health 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27741
services. Not only have Parkes and Forbes benefited from this planning funding; Forbes District Hospital will receive $102,000 and Parkes District Hospital will receive $125,000 in funding for new equipment as part of the Council of Australian Governments agreement. I thank the member for Dubbo for highlighting this issue and for giving me the opportunity to put on the record the situation with regard to this important planning money for Parkes and Forbes.
BAIL ASSISTANCE LINE
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Will the Minister update the House on the rollout of the bail assistance line in the Hunter?
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: All members of this House agree that some people, including juveniles, need to be in custody. The community expects it and justice requires it.
Mr Brad Hazzard: The member for Fairfield.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members might want to reflect on that interjection after the points of order they have been raising.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: However, there is widespread agreement that we should aim to reduce the number of young people who are being held in custody on remand pending a court outcome and who could be supervised on bail in the community. That is why this Government has committed $1.7 million in 2010-11 to establish the after-hours bail assistance line. As members know, the line was established in Dubbo in July and in western Sydney in August. I can advise that from today it is operational in the Hunter. Selected non-government organisations provide bail-related services such as transport, accommodation and case support for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young people. The line operates between the hours of 4.00 p.m. and 3.00 a.m. every day.
Police are able to telephone a 1300 number and speak with a juvenile justice bail coordinator, who can provide assistance. That assistance can be locating a responsible adult or coordinating transport or accommodation. This helps the young person to meet their bail conditions and to avoid entering into custody unnecessarily. Before the bail assistance line was introduced a young person who was eligible for bail may have been held in custody because they did not have a safe place to live or because police were unable to locate a suitable person to attend the police station. This line will help free up valuable police time for other front-line duties. Unfortunately it is the case that many juvenile justice clients are from families that do not provide the optimal level of care and support. That is one reason the bail assistance line is so important.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: It's a bandaid solution at best.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: What is the member's solution? Sometime in 18 years we will do something.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order for the second time.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: What is the member's solution?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will make her contribution through the Chair. The member for Murrumbidgee will cease interjecting.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: Police from around the State are calling the bail assistance line for advice on how best to place young people whose family or carers cannot be contacted. Only last week the line staff helped police find accommodation for a 12-year-old in western Sydney whose family could not be contacted after police picked him up. In that case CatholicCare was able to find a bed and support for this young person until he faced court. In a similar case in Dubbo police called the bail assistance line after they arrested a 15- year-old on break and enter charges. Police assessed that the first-time offender should not be held in custody but they could not find him a safe placement. So the bail assistance line staff contacted Life Without Barriers; one of its foster carers collected the young person, and he stayed with the foster carer until his court appearance. During that time he was able to reconnect with school, and Life Without Barriers has provided ongoing support for this young person. 27742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
The young people who have received placements so far have ranged from 12 to 15 years of age. These are young people who police have decided should receive bail and the only thing keeping them in custody is the lack of safe and suitable accommodation or an adult to collect them. Non-government organisations that are contracted to the bail assistance line can and do provide a safe and secure environment. They also provide links to education, community services, drug and alcohol counselling and ongoing support through other programs. The introduction of the line in the Hunter region will add to the network of support services for youth in the region. I know this will be of interest to all of my colleagues in the Hunter region, and it should be of interest to all members in this House.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order for the third time.
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: I am confident that this new service will help police find alternatives to custody for young people who are eligible for bail, and the support of Life Without Barriers will help to put troubled young people in the Hunter back on the right path.
Question time concluded at 3.20 p.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Conduct of Business
The SPEAKER: Order! Prior to question time the member for Murrumbidgee raised the issue of the House breaking for lunch before 1.30 p.m. as provided in the standing orders. I have made inquiries in regard to that issue. I am satisfied that the situation arose due to a breakdown in communication with the Deputy-Speaker, securing advice on the assumption that the action to leave the Chair was with the agreement of both sides of the House.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: It was not by both sides.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am saying that it was not. On behalf of those persons involved, I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
Report
Mr Robert Coombs, as Chair, tabled report No. 8/54 entitled "Children, Young People and the Built Environment, Follow-up Inquiry", dated November 2010.
Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Robert Coombs.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Report
Mr Kerry Hickey, as Chair, tabled the report entitled "Report on an Inquiry into Improper Associations in the NSW Police Force", dated November 2010.
Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Kerry Hickey.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing Orders: Question Time
Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended at this sitting to postpone consideration of general business to permit consideration, at the conclusion of the motion accorded priority, of the notice of motion relating to answers in Question Time given by the Premier this day. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27743
PETITIONS
The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:
South Coast Rail Line Facilities
Petition requesting that train carriages be fitted with toilet and luggage facilities on the South Coast rail line, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Sydney Harbour Planning
Petition requesting an inquiry into development processes on the Barangaroo site and the creation of a dedicated Bays Renewal Committee to coordinate redevelopment around Sydney Harbour, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Pet Shops
Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Mental Health Services
Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.
The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by more than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:
Wagga Wagga Base Hospital
Petition requesting funding for and the commencement of construction of a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital in this parliamentary term, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Coogee Bay Hotel Site
Petition opposing any redevelopment of the site bounded by Coogee Bay Road and Arden and Vicar Streets under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, received from Mr Paul Pearce.
Warriewood Redevelopment Conception Plan
Petition opposing the current redevelopment conception plan and stage 1 project application at 14-18 Boondah Road, 23-27 Warriewood Road and Macpherson Street Warriewood under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, received from Mr Rob Stokes.
Burrill Lake
Petition requesting the opening of Burrill Lake, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY
Public Transport Privatisation
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta) [3.23 p.m.]: New South Wales has a long and proud history of publicly owned transport services. It is a tradition that has seen trains, buses and ferries that move people around our great State remain in the hands of the community. It is a policy that has continued under successive Labor governments, a policy that has seen continued improvements in on-time running, services, reliability and customer services. Meanwhile those on the other side of the House are a threat to public transport in this State and are willing to privatise our important public transport system. Sydney has the largest public transport system in Australia. Every day more than 1.5 million people catch a train, bus or ferry to and from work. We cannot 27744 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
risk the Opposition's plans to privatise our public transport system—our trains, ferries and buses. Former Liberal Premier Nick Greiner has already let out of the bottom drawer the Opposition's policy. In a speech to the Property Council Growth Symposium on 5 November he said:
Clearly we need a full court press on infrastructure funding. More creative PPP models, more hypothecated debt, more State balance sheet repair by privatisation all have their place.
We know that the Liberal Party is looking to Nick Greiner for ideas—that is where the Leader of the Opposition got his idea of the top drawer and the bottom drawer from. Nick Greiner said that you have a top drawer for the policies you tell the public about and a bottom drawer for the policies you are saving for when you are in government. What is the Opposition going to privatise in our public transport system should the Coalition win government? This debate needs to be had, and that is why my motion should be accorded priority.
Public Transport
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [3.26 p.m.]: I argue strenuously that my motion should be accorded priority and that this House note that the people of New South Wales do not need a change of Labor members but rather a change of government if they are to be delivered real reform in New South Wales. The people of New South Wales deserve a government that is concerned about turning around the mess in New South Wales, rather than the group of individuals opposite who are more obsessed about the internal machinations of their own party. This motion should be debated today because the people of New South Wales are sick of Labor's spin and deserve an explanation as to why, whilst the Government is claiming renewal, it is just delivering more of the same incompetence, waste, and lack of transparency. Members opposite need to explain themselves.
Labor is incapable of delivering any reform in public transport because we have a Minister in the Legislative Council who is more obsessed about finding himself a seat in the Legislative Assembly rather than focusing on the issues that concern the people of New South Wales. Frustrated commuters are looking to a response to why their trains do not run reliably, why their buses are frequently too over-crowded, why the ferry system is going backwards, and why we do not have so many of the other transport reforms that other States around Australia have. This is an opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to explain why its definition of "renewal" is bringing down a member from the Legislative Council to the Legislative Assembly, rather than focusing on those issues which concern the people of New South Wales.
The eleventh-hour departure of all these members demonstrates that the Labor Party does not have a plan for renewal or growth, because where is the new talent? The only names that keep popping up are existing Ministers, Labor staffers or union officials. No-one from the Labor Party out there can demonstrate hand on heart that they have invested any time and effort into renewing the ranks. Rather, it is a bunch of people who have lost confidence in their own party and in a Labor Party that has lost its soul and has let the people of New South Wales down miserably. At the end of the day the people of New South Wales deserve so much better.
The Government's response to renewal is to replace members from the Legislative Council into the Legislative Assembly. In particular, the Minister for Transport still today cannot provide an explanation about why the Waratah carriages will not be arriving, why his Government has failed to deliver rail line after rail line, or why we do not have an electronic ticketing system that 96 cities around the world have. Why will he not give compensation to small businesses that have been burned by the CBD Rozelle Metro? Why does he claim to be able to build four rail lines in the next term of a Labor Government when in the past 15 years the Labor Party has only built half of one rail line?
This is a Government that has lost its way and has not learned from its past mistakes. This is a Government that does not listen to the people of New South Wales. If anything, the Labor Party had the opportunity after those results in both the Ryde and Penrith by-elections to listen to the community. The community was asking for renewal, for new ideas, and a response to all those services that are letting them down, but the Labor Party's response was to do nothing. The Labor Party's response was to continue with more of the same—more of the spin—and not address those major issues of reform.
The story about this side of the House is much happier and much more positive, I am pleased to say. We on this side of the House do have a clear plan, a clear vision for the future of New South Wales. We have a plan to make sure that New South Wales becomes the No. 1 State again. We have a plan to make sure that the New South Wales economy is rebuilt through lower taxes and business growth. We have a plan to make sure that New South Wales is returned to delivering quality services in the areas of health, transport, education and 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27745
commuter safety. We have a plan to renew our infrastructure, to renew the infrastructure that makes a difference to people's lives. We have a plan to restore accountability in government by giving people a say on the issues that affect their lives. We have a plan to protect our local environment and return planning powers to the community. We on this side of the House are about change, about renewal, and about offering the people of New South Wales hope.
We know that the first and foremost priority of any member of this place should be to look after the community, to represent the community in this place, rather than worry about the internal machinations of the Labor Party or about putting people's interests ahead of what is in the best interests of this State. The Labor Party loves to hide behind this so-called notion of renewal when all of its members are desperate and leaving the ranks—15 all up, and we know that a number are to come.
Mr Mike Baird: Sixteen.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Sixteen—sorry if I miscounted. The point is that they can spin all they like, but we know that members opposite have lost heart and confidence in their own party. Only members on this side can deliver real change to the people of New South Wales and, if the Labor Party is serious about addressing these issues, it should explain itself to the people today.
Question—That the motion of the member for Parramatta be accorded priority—put and resolved in the affirmative.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIVATISATION
Motion Accorded Priority
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta) [3.31 p.m.]: I move:
That this House opposes the privatisation of public transport in New South Wales.
We already know what this Labor Government is doing for public transport—rolling out initiatives for the benefit of New South Wales commuters—but what we do not know is what the Opposition is going to put at risk if it is elected in March next year. The Keneally Government has rolled out a number of initiatives to continue to improve public transport for commuters. One of the most successful and recognised initiatives was the new MyZone fares introduced in April this year, which saw 94 per cent of public transport fares fall or remain the same. For people all over Sydney, this was good news. For commuters in my area of Parramatta, a weekly train ticket from Parramatta to Town Hall went down by $3 to $37. A weekly ticket from Parramatta to Penrith went down by $6, to $37. The benefits for people who use more than one mode of transport were even more significant, with the new MyMulti ticket capping the most that commuters pay for public transport in the greater Sydney area at $57 per week. The Government continues to roll out public transport initiatives to the benefit of commuters right across Sydney.
The expanded Metrobus network announced by the Premier in July this year includes a new 13-route network that criss-crosses Sydney, linking employment centres with major transport hubs and residential centres. People are voting with their feet, with more than five million people catching a Metrobus since the buses began operating on Sydney's roads. By the middle of next year the expanded network will provide 5,500 extra bus services a week. Importantly, for Sydney's second central business district of Parramatta, the new network features five new routes that will run through Parramatta city.
These initiatives are being delivered by the Government right now—by a Government that is determined to oppose the privatisation of our public transport system. In December the Keneally Government announced we would keep ferry services on Sydney Harbour in public hands. The Government listened to the community and made a decision, which delivers two things: better ferry services whilst maintaining ownership of our iconic ferry services in public hands. In making this decision, the Government took account of the strong views of the community and the improved performance of Sydney Ferries since it was de-corporatised at the end of 2008.
Changing the governance arrangements for Sydney Ferries was one of the key recommendations from the Special Commission of Inquiry into Sydney Ferries in 2007. In response to these recommendations, the Government also subjected Sydney Ferries to a rigorous market testing process. During this period significant 27746 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
reforms were achieved within the organisation, particularly in relation to improving customer service and resolving staffing issues. This proved that the myth bandied around by the Opposition that you get better services by selling off assets in a fire sale was false. There is no doubt that ferry passengers deserve better services, and I am pleased that Sydney Ferries has made solid improvements. That includes in terms of patronage, on-time running, vessel reliability, fleet availability, and a reduction in complaints.
Sydney Ferries has lifted its performance significantly in the 2009-10 financial year: on-time running remained high at 98.1 per cent; service reliability was up—99.9 per cent compared with 99.5 per cent in the previous year; fleet availability was up—86 per cent compared with 80.8 per cent in the previous year; vessel reliability was up—96.4 per cent compared with 95 per cent in the previous year; and complaints per 100,000 passengers dropped to 4.4, down from 6.2 in the previous year. In fact patronage across the network increased by 3 per cent in 2009-10. Those are big improvements for commuters and are a strong endorsement for the hard work Sydney Ferries has been undertaking.
All of this will be lost under the Opposition. Those improvements will be lost. More significantly, Sydney's iconic ferries will be lost to the private sector. The Opposition has said it will franchise out ferry services to the private sector. They want to franchise out our ferry services like a McDonalds. They have said they will split up Sydney Ferries between different private companies, so you will have different companies running different routes, competing against each other. You might have Burger King running the Balmain to Circular Quay route, KFC operating the Manly ferry, and Subway on the Rose Bay service! This is outrageous and the community has cause to be extremely concerned. These are not cheeseburgers; these are critical services enjoyed by millions of Sydneysiders each year. It gets worse. On 30 October the shadow Treasurer, Mike Baird, said in the Sydney Morning Herald:
There is a very clear opportunity to prove whether franchising works in the New South Wales context, with ferries.
That's where we're going to start.
With CityRail, clearly there's a lot of things that can be done to improve efficiencies.
Mr Mike Baird: Yes.
Ms TANYA GADIEL: Absolutely. I thank the member for Manly. He also said:
While we're working on ferries we'll be working on CityRail ... to improve those efficiencies.
So not only are they going to sell off ferries; they are going to do the same to CityRail.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [3.38 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this motion because we agree with the sentiment expressed in the motion, but what we do oppose is the rubbish that is coming from the other side of the House on public transport. We have a State Government that has had nearly 16 years to prove itself in public transport, but the commuting public is despondent and frustrated and cannot make their way to work and home without factoring in issues such as will the train be on time, will the bus arrive, or will there be an accident on the road making the journey time an extra hour?
We have a situation in Sydney in particular and broadly throughout New South Wales where public transport is a major issue because members opposite choose to engage in debates like this that are based on fear and false statements rather than focusing on the real issues that matter to commuters. I refer first to some issues that are relevant to the members who are currently seeking to interject. One would have thought the member for Parramatta and the member for Drummoyne would take a particular interest in public transport, especially ferries, because they are part of a Government whose city of Sydney transport plan—I cannot remember the page number—forecasts a decline of 5 per cent in Sydney Ferries patronage levels in the next 10 years.
Ms Angela D'Amore: Rubbish!
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: The member for Drummoyne obviously does not read her Government's plans for public transport. She obviously does not care about making representations to the Minister for Transport on behalf of her constituents to ask why he is planning for a decline in patronage. Patronage in 2010 is 40,000 and in 2020, although the populations of both Parramatta and Drummoyne will increase massively, those electorates will see a decline in patronage. That is what the Government is planning. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27747
Recently Minister Robertson made a very cynical announcement about changing timetables for ferry services. He claimed to be taking services away from one part of Sydney to increase them in another part of Sydney, but the truth is there has been a net loss of more than 30 ferry services. There are fewer services on Sydney Harbour and the waterways today than there were two months ago. If members opposite do not believe that, they should do what we have done and go through the timetable and match every service to those in the new timetable. There are 34 fewer services.
For members opposite to try to reduce public transport debate to a campaign of fear is the final act of desperation. We on this side of the House will continue to work very hard with all the stakeholders in public transport and, if we are successful in March, bring much-needed reform to the people of New South Wales. If that means allowing the private sector to be involved in Sydney Ferries, we will allow the private sector to operate services while we own the vessels, as we have said previously. The private sector is already involved in many parts of the system. In Newcastle and other parts of New South Wales private operators already have a place in public transport.
It is hypocritical of the member for Parramatta to put this motion forward when her Government spent nearly two years and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money working towards franchising Sydney Ferries. At the eleventh hour Sydney Ferries Corporation scored 56 out of 100 for the service it provides. When we asked the Government what the private sector bidders' scores were it refused to disclose that information. As recently as a few weeks ago I requested that information. The Government has chosen to regard that information as Cabinet documents, thereby not even disclosing to the public how the private sector fared.
If the Government has nothing to hide and is so confident in the service Sydney Ferries is providing why will it not release the bids of the other private sector operators? Why will the Government not release the scores of the other operators? If Sydney Ferries did so well, and 56 out of 100 was the best score received by the State Government in relation to the audits it conducted in the tender process, why will it not release that information? It is because it knows it is not true. For political reasons the Government has made the decision to maintain Sydney Ferries as the main operator. It does not want to upset its union mates; it does not want to rock the boat. The Government has done that rather than provide the people of New South Wales with a better service.
There is no other explanation. Why would a government be very comfortable in planning for a decline in patronage? Why would a government be comfortable in not disclosing to the community how the other organisations fared in this process? If the Government is so confident in what Sydney Ferries is doing why will the Government not tell us how other organisations compared? The Government has not made the difficult decisions on public transport. Government members come into this place day after day spinning their way through public transport issues without really caring what the travelling public have to go through. People struggle every day to get to work and home again, whether they are from single-income families or double-income families. But today this rubbish argument is put forward to try to create an unjustified fear campaign. We support the concept in this motion.
We do not support privatisation of transport services. If we did we would tell the public that that was our policy. Instead we have announced five or six radical reforms to public transport, including the establishment of an integrated transport authority, which is absolutely vital to this State. We are the only major State in Australia that does not have a single transport body that plans and coordinates transport services across all modes. That is a disgrace. There are 14 transport agencies that do their own thing and do not communicate with each other. There is no single body that looks at transport interchanges or coordinates bus and ferry timetables. Yet the Government is happy to waste time in here trying to start a fear campaign because it cannot be bothered to make real reforms in public transport.
Another major issue we have addressed is franchising Sydney ferry services. A second major issue is improving safety amenity for people using railway stations and commuter car parks across the network. We have proposed a huge boost in community transport. I have not heard any members opposite talk about community transport. That is because for the past 12 years the State Government has not increased spending on community transport by a single dollar.
Ms Angela D'Amore: Rubbish!
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: That is what the Government's own website says. The member for Drummoyne obviously does not know what her Government is doing. She comes in here and reads speeches she has been given without knowing what is going on. Here we go again this afternoon with a debate that seeks to engender fear— [Time expired.] 27748 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.45 p.m.]: Only a Labor government will deliver quality public transport for the people of New South Wales. Our 10-year, fully funded Metropolitan Transport Plan sets out $50.2 billion worth of investment for the people of New South Wales. The plan includes investments such as $3.1 billion for new trains, in addition to the 626 Waratah carriages on order and the 126 OSCars already servicing the Central Coast, Western and South Coast lines, with 70 more to come. There are six new ferries, which are especially welcome in my electorate. We have just undertaken a ferry review, which has delivered increased services to the majority of wharves in my electorate. I know members opposite refuse to acknowledge that because it is not convenient. There will also be 1,000 new buses. I can say from personal experience that hundreds of new bus services have been delivered in the electorate of Drummoyne. I note in particular the 415, 439, L39, extension of the 466, the M50, M51, M52 and the M41, to name just a few.
This Government is investing in further improvements to the rail network to increase the capacity, quality and condition of our public transport infrastructure over the next 10 years. Our plan includes $4.5 billion for a Western Express and City Relief line to unlock the CityRail network and provide faster and more frequent services across the network. It will increase the number of seats available for western Sydney commuters by approximately 6,000 per hour during the morning peak, and will have flow-on benefits for commuters on the Bankstown, Liverpool, Macarthur, Illawarra, and main south and northern lines.
The South West Rail Link is under construction right now. This project will deliver new public transport services to an entire region of Sydney, servicing 110,000 homes in the South West Growth Centre and the new Leppington Town Centre. Working with the Federal Government, we are delivering the Parramatta to Epping rail link. This critical piece of transport infrastructure will directly link Sydney's second central business district of Parramatta with employment centres such as Macquarie Park, North Ryde and Chatswood, and substantially reduce journey time to Chatswood from Parramatta by rail. Further, the Metropolitan Transport Plan delivers a $500 million expansion of the light rail system, including light rail from Haymarket to Circular Quay and 5.6 kilometres of light rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill.
It does not stop there: under the Metropolitan Transport Plan there will also be more than $400 million for commuter car parks, a $57 million commuter infrastructure fund for improved and easy access for people with disabilities, more awnings and shelters at rail stations, and $536 million for motorway planning, transit corridor reservations and land acquisition for future projects. We have constructed the Metropolitan Transport Plan based on planning for the future of our vibrant global city.
Sydney's future is one in which jobs, services and housing sit in many centres such as Parramatta, Penrith, Chatswood, Hurstville and Liverpool, as well as the Sydney central business district. We have a vision for public transport and a 10-year fully funded package of transport infrastructure to support it. But what is the vision of the Leader of the Opposition for public transport in Sydney? The Opposition's Start the Change document does not refer to one new train carriage, bus or ferry; it makes no commitment to MyZone or to public transport fares; and it makes no commitment to the Western Express line. Opposition members are committed to selling off Sydney Ferries, and that is not the end of it. The member for Manly confirmed as much when he said:
There is a very clear opportunity to prove whether franchising works in the NSW context, with ferries.
That's where we're going to start.
With CityRail, clearly there's a lot of things that can be done to improve efficiencies.
While we're working on ferries we'll be working on CityRail ... to improve those efficiencies.
That is the Opposition's plan to privatise ferries. When it has finished with the public service it will move on to CityRail. We know where it starts, but where does it end? As all members know, the answer must be in the bottom drawer of the Leader of the Opposition. When the former Coalition Government was in office in this State it sacked 2,500 teachers, closed 70 schools—one in my electorate—and sold off the land. We have now increased enrolments in that area. The former Coalition Government closed 30 hospitals and sacked 8,000 railway workers.
Mr Michael Daley: And 1,000 Department of Community Services workers.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: I thank the Minister for reminding me that it sacked 1,000 Department of Community Services workers. In the words of Opposition members, they will start with the ferries and, while 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27749
they are doing that, they will move to CityRail. What will be next—State Transit or buses? After all, Opposition members are under the leadership of Nick Greiner. The Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, is abiding by his rule to keep the policies he wants to save for government hidden away in his bottom drawer.
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [3.50 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak in debate on the motion moved earlier by the member for Parramatta. As usual, Government members are running a campaign of fear, myths and misinformation. I am happy to place on the record why the Liberal-Nationals Coalition wants to improve ferry services across Sydney. Government members referred earlier to privatisation and said that that means selling off the assets of this State, when it means nothing of the sort. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition is talking about the best possible way to improve the service delivery of Sydney Ferries on Sydney Harbour—nothing more and nothing less. From a management point of view we said we would look at a number of different models to ensure the best possible management and to deliver the best possible service. That is all it is. When the Government was looking to involve the private sector in a fast ferry operation it said:
The tender is focused on ensuring value for money for government.
We are looking for value for money and for the best possible service. Why would we not pursue those sorts of ideals for every community in this State? Members might remember Bret Walker's inquiry and review into Sydney Ferries. We believe the Walker report to be eminently sensible. Bret Walker recommended outsourcing the management of Sydney Ferries and involving the private sector in the context of delivering a better service to Sydney commuters. Government members are running a scare campaign and they are going nuts when that is all that Coalition members are proposing. We have been transparent about this and we have been talking about what we are doing. What has happened under this Government? What is it prepared to do for public transport and for commuters, in particular, on the northern beaches? On 23 October the Premier said:
The JetCat provides an unreliable service duplicated by a 30-minute ferry service and numerous bus services from the northern beaches. We must now consider the viability of the existing service.
That is what will occur if it is left to the current State Labor Government. Those words are explicit: the Government said, "We cannot run this service properly so you will have nothing. We will leave you with the existing ferry service and the existing buses." That is the way in which this Government runs public transport in this State. The Government should be examining how to deliver the best possible services. We lobbied the Government and initially it refused to do anything about public transport. We said to the Government, "You are going to abandon this service. Surely you can open it up and ask the private sector to play a role, as it currently does, in other guises and forms across the harbour." We said, "Surely this is something at which you should look", but the Government continued to resist our requests. Finally it rolled over and the member for Keira—the former Minister for Transport—opened it up and let in the private sector.
Let us look at the past performance of JetCats. There was a decline in patronage, with many customer complaints, and a number of reportable vessel incidents. In fact, in one three-month period 430 ferries failed to show up. The JetCat service was unreliable. Since the implementation of the new service, patronage has gone through the roof and fares are much cheaper. Tickets used to cost about $8.50 but they are now down to about $7 a ticket. Throughout the year only four services were cancelled, and that is an unbelievable increase in reliability. Daily patronage is up about 40 per cent—it certainly was for the first 12 months. We are able to support this cheaper and more reliable service, and people like the new vessels.
Sydney commuters have been crying out for this service, and that is why the Liberal-Nationals Coalition is determined to make these changes. The Maritime Union of Australia [MUA] played a constructive role in this area. I did not agree with its initial resistance to these measures. The MUA negotiated with the new operator and came to an agreement that resulted in the operation of this wonderful service. I wish to refer to the statements that have been made by some ferry commuters. Anthony said:
I rarely used the highly unreliable JetCats but the excellent Fast Ferry service is a different matter. They are fast, comfortable, friendly, reliable and on time. As an added bonus they have even inspired the government run Manly Ferries to also improve their service, something that had been impossible for years.
It is clear that Anthony loves the service. Kim, another user of the service, said:
Only once have I experienced a break down with Fast Ferry, as compared with numerous cancellations of the previous JetCat service run by Sydney Ferries. On this one occasion, Fast Ferry immediately provided an alternate vessel to ensure that services were not disrupted. I was impressed by how they handled the event and the fact that they communicated to commuters in detail what was happening, what they were doing to fix the broken vessel; basically being transparent and so giving confidence to the commuters that they had the matter in hand.
27750 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
I have received hundreds of letters similar to those from which I have quoted. Anne, another user of the ferry service, said:
I look forward with great anticipation to my trip home each afternoon with the welcoming and cheerful crew, the lovely clean surroundings and efficient service, for such a reasonable cost.
Government members condemned the Opposition's plan for Sydney Ferries and in so doing it condemned every commuter in this State to that sort of service. Opposition members are simply asking: How can we deliver the best possible service to commuters in this State? I am happy to defend the Opposition's plan to provide commuters with the best possible ferry service.
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta) [3.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Drummoyne, the member for Willoughby and the member for Manly for their contributions to debate on this motion. I thank the member for Drummoyne for her support and for fighting incredibly hard for Sydney Ferries, which in the long term led to significant changes in our community. I listened intently to the contributions of the member for Willoughby and the member for Manly, who said that this Government was running a fear campaign. The member for Manly also said that if the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was going to privatise public transport it would be upfront and transparent about it. If that occurred, he would be the only Liberal who was upfront and transparent.
When Jeff Kennett was elected in Victoria he started flogging off all that State's assets, including rail services. However, he did not say, "The policy of this Government will be to flog off these assets." The Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not state openly what it is going to do but in reality that is what will occur. That is its bottom of the drawer philosophy. It is exactly what Nick Greiner told us about. He told us about the top drawer and the bottom drawer, what it will be yanking out and what it will be subjecting people to. The member for Willoughby referred earlier to a Government fear campaign. She said also that the Labor Party was interested only in looking after its union mates—which is typical union bashing by the Liberal Party. Members of that party have a real problem with the workers of this State.
Mr Mike Baird: I commended the Maritime Union of Australia.
Ms TANYA GADIEL: The member for Manly might well have commended the Maritime Union of Australia [MUA], but the member for Willoughby, in her contribution, engaged in union bashing and said that somehow the Labor Party was a bad party because it listened to the workers. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition has a proven history of not listening to workers. When the former Coalition Government was in office thousands of teachers and other workers were sacked. After the former Coalition Government sacked all those teachers I became involved in politics. A generation of people who are my age vehemently oppose the Liberal Party. In spite of all its protestations that it will not sack anybody or privatise anything, and that people do understand what it is about, it has some nasty and ugly policies in its bottom drawer. They will be exposed. It is completely appropriate for the community to have a good look.
The issues raised by the member for Willoughby demonstrate her duplicity. She talked about the 4.8 per cent fall in ferry patronage by 2010 as outlined in the Metropolitan Transport Plan. Guess what? The projections in that plan are from the Bureau of Transport Statistics and assumed that nothing would change within Sydney Ferries. Obviously, changes are underway. In recent times Sydney Ferries has improved in patronage, on-time running, vessel reliability, fleet availability and level of complaints. A comprehensive review of Sydney Ferries is being undertaken in regard to the operation of routes and the possibility of new routes. Based on these reforms, Sydney Ferries patronage is expected to increase.
The member for Willoughby spoke about the number of services. All the ferry routes that the Opposition complained about have more services. Services have increased across the board by more than 4 per cent per wharf under the new timetable. We only have to look south of the border to understand how commuters suffer when public transport is sold. We know what happens when the Liberals say, "Trust us. We are going to fix it. Trust how we will do it." Flogging off our assets will not fix anything.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27751
STANDING ORDERS
Answers During Question Time
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Pursuant to an earlier motion to suspend standing orders, the House will now proceed to consider the notice of motion given this day proposing an amendment to Standing Order 131.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.00 p.m.]: I move:
That:
(1) Standing Order 131 be amended by adding the following new paragraphs:
(2) An answer to a question must not exceed five minutes.
(3) At the conclusion of the Minister's answer to a question, the member who asked the question may, at the discretion of the Speaker, seek additional information from the Minister. The Minister's response on the additional information must not exceed two minutes.
(4) The Speaker has discretion at any time during a Minister's answer to order that the timing clock be paused."
(2) The amendment be forwarded by the Speaker to Her Excellency the Governor for approval.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order 317, which states:
The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, the Library Committee and the House Committee shall be standing committees.
This proposed amendment to the standing orders has not been put before the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. As we have standing committees of the House, the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee should be asked to deliberate on this matter.
Mr Michael Daley: That is not a point of order.
Mr Andrew Fraser: It is a point of order.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I will be the judge of that.
Mr Andrew Fraser: The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee makes recommendations to the House in respect to the standing orders, not the Premier on a whim to try to gain some public satisfaction.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I will hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: To the point of order: The standing order to which the member refers is a machinery provision establishing standing committees. Standing Order 317 states:
The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, the Library Committee and the House Committee shall be standing committees.
That is fine: we agree with that and acknowledge it. I remind the member that the motion with which we are dealing arises from the establishment of a special select committee under a resolution of this Parliament. It does not relate to a standing committee. The point of order raised by the member for Coffs Harbour cannot directly relate to the motion I have moved.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: I appreciate that the Leader of the House has been in this place longer than I have, but in the history of this House it always has been the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee that has considered standing orders for this House, and its recommendations have been put formally to this House. Although a joint select committee has been established for this particular purpose, my understanding is that this proposed amendment was not referred to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee of this House. That is the committee that makes recommendations to the House, which then decides on those standing orders as decided by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. All I am asking is that this change to the standing orders be referred to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee in order for it to deliberate and make a recommendation to the House. 27752 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
This procedure has been introduced today without notice to the Opposition or to the Independents. I believe that a proposed amendment to a standing order must go through due process, which occurs in every parliament. In fact, Standing Order 1 repeals standing orders. In addition, Standing Orders 364 and 365 provide the opportunity for standing orders to be changed. However, the process for the past 20 years during which I have been a member of this place has been that any change to the standing orders is referred to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, as was the case in the report from the joint standing committee. However, whilst that report was argued in this House, voted on and eventually adopted, this particular proposed change to the standing orders was not put to or voted on by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: Further to the point of order: The member for Coffs Harbour seems to continue to ignore that this recommendation comes from a special select committee precisely and deliberately formed by way of resolution of this Parliament for this specific purpose. For that reason the select committee supersedes the existing Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which deals with normal matters. In normal circumstances, without a special select committee formed by a resolution of the Parliament to examine these matters, the member would be correct. However, in this instance he is wrong because the select committee, which was established by a resolution of this Parliament, has made a determination and we now, as a Parliament, will deliberate on the determination of that select committee.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: To the point of order: Bringing this standing order into the House for consideration now is in breach of a resolution of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure. I refer to paragraph 1.12, which states:
Members of the Assembly working group indicated that the following matters raised in this report may be taken to the Legislative Assembly's Standing Orders and Procedure Committee immediately:
This included:
• Placing a five-minute time limit on answers to questions asked in the House.
The motion of the Leader of the House is in breach of one of the resolutions of the joint select committee.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! What is the date of the report from which you read that paragraph?
Mr Adrian Piccoli: This is the report dated October 2010 by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I shall rule firstly on the point of order taken by the member for Coffs Harbour. Clearly, the standing order to which he refers was about the establishment of committees. I uphold the point taken by the Leader of the House. He says that that point of order is not relevant to this particular matter, which has come through the joint select committee. I will seek advice from the Clerk on the point raised by the member for Murrumbidgee.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: The joint select committee has reported and the House has adopted the recommendations. The recommendation as stated by the Leader of the House is that the standing committee referred the matter to the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. Therefore, the argument of the Leader of the House that the joint select committee takes precedence over the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee is fallacious on the basis that the joint standing committee has completed its report and specifically referred this standing order recommendation back to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which has not yet met. Therefore, the Leader of the House is premature in moving the motion to suspend standing orders without having first, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure, referred the reform to the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee for its recommendation.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I remind the member for Coffs Harbour that the Opposition wanted to debate this motion prior to the commencement of question time.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: To the point of order: The member for Coffs Harbour should be aware that the House is not bound by the recommendation of the committee.
Mr Andrew Fraser: You just said it was. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27753
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I have never said that.
[Interruption]
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Members will remain silent. I cannot hear the Leader of the House.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I said that the House is not bound by the recommendation of any committee. At the end of the day, Parliament is able to determine for itself precisely what it deals with and how it deals with matters concerning standing orders and sessional orders. That has been the practice several times in the past. The member for Coffs Harbour said that he is not aware of any time when there was not a standing orders committee. I assure him that there have been times when the New South Wales Legislative Assembly did not have a standing orders committee.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Prior to my election.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: No, it was during the member's term.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: The Leader of the House has just told us that the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure takes precedence over the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. The very basic point I make is that the joint select committee has completed its report and it referred this matter to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which takes precedence. The Leader of the House has contradicted himself. The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee of the Legislative Assembly must take precedence.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I have in no way contradicted myself. I make precisely this point once again: the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure that was set up by a resolution of Parliament has made recommendations; that select committee has precedence over the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, but the Parliament is not compelled to accept recommendations of either committee. At the end of the day, Parliament determines its own destiny. It is up to Parliament to make the final decision.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: The Opposition has acted in good faith. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure. That committee debated the proposed changes. The committee resolved unanimously that before any of the changes came before Parliament, they would be referred to the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. That is stated in black and white at paragraph 1.11 in the report prepared by the joint select committee. It states:
Whilst both the Assembly and Council working groups have made some recommendations for immediate reform, in most instances it has been recommended that matters be examined further by the Procedure Committees of the respective Houses. In part, this reflects the tight time frame for the Committee's inquiry.
If I had been aware, as a member of that committee, that the proposal for reform would go from that committee straight to Parliament, the committee may have taken longer to debate some of the proposals for change. The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure made its recommendation on its understanding that the matter would be reconsidered by the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. The problem with the matter going straight from the joint committee to the Legislative Assembly is that the joint committee comprised some members of the Legislative Council. I do not think it is appropriate for members of the Legislative Council to be deliberating on Legislative Assembly standing orders, and I do not think Legislative Council members would like members of the Legislative Assembly deliberating on Legislative Council standing orders.
This course of action is completely inappropriate. I hope the member for Riverstone will not conclude his 30 years of service to the House by showing contempt to a joint select committee that has acted in good faith. That committee passed a unanimous resolution, but the Leader of the House has expressed the view that Parliament does not have to consider the views of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure. If a joint select committee on parliamentary procedure can be treated with such contempt, that calls into question the validity of the entire committee system of this Parliament.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Does the Leader of the House wish to add anything at this point? 27754 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I take strong objection to some of the comments that have been made by the member for Murrumbidgee. I have not said that the Parliament in any way disregards the processes of either the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure or the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. I simply have stated the reality that Parliament is not bound by the recommendations of a committee. At the end of the day, Parliament makes its own determinations. I cite the recommendation stated in paragraph 1.11 on page three of the report under the heading "Implementation"—a recommendation that the member for Murrumbidgee voted in favour of:
Whilst both the Assembly and Council working groups have made some recommendations for immediate reform, in most instances it has been recommended that matters be examined further by the Procedure Committees of the respective Houses.
The operative sentence is "it has been recommended" because that is all the committee can do: recommend. The Parliament is not bound by any committee recommendations. I also make the point that discussion of the point of order is becoming a debate on the motion instead of simply being a process by which a point of order is determined. It is very unusual for points of order to be parried for such a long time.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I will hear from the member for Coffs Harbour and then make my ruling.
Mr Andrew Fraser: While I agree with the last comment made by the Leader of the House, I suggest that when he reads Hansard he will discover he contradicted himself. He told the House that the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure take precedence over the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. He now asserts that we do not have to take any notice of the standing orders committee's recommendations, and that is true: the matter is determined by the House. However, the procedure outlined in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure is that the proposal for reform be referred to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. Accordingly, as the member for Murrumbidgee and leader of Opposition business in the Legislative Assembly has stated, the standing orders committee would have been given an opportunity to discuss the reform and make a recommendation to Parliament. That recommendation would have been debated, in accordance with the practice outlined in the standing orders.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that this debate should be adjourned to allow the proposal to be referred to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee for full discussion, with appropriate advice from the Clerk, and account taken of the debate that has ensued this afternoon. I think that is only fair. We need that. No-one has complained, but literally the Opposition has been given an hour in which to examine the reform and consider all its implications. Debate should ensue within the context of a recommendation from the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which is comprised of an Independent member, the Speaker, other Independent members, Government members and Opposition members.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Members are familiar with the composition of the committee. I thank the member for Coffs Harbour and all other members who contributed to a debate on the point of order taken by the member for Coffs Harbour. I have listened extensively to both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it comes down to something that supersedes everything, no matter what committee we are talking about—and that is the Constitution.
Section 15 of the Constitution gives the House the right to make standing orders. It does not prescribe means by which standing orders may be amended, except by a vote of the House. That is the point we are coming to now. Parliament decides whether or not the standing order will be amended, and that is as it should be. As the Leader of the House has said, it is up to Parliament. I intend to proceed to put the motion. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I had intended to speak briefly to the motion.
Mr Andrew Fraser: I can guarantee you will be brief.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA: Considering that the point of order took 16 minutes to be determined, I have no choice but to be brief. The issue is one with which I would think all members would be in broad agreement. The Government is eager to introduce this reform as quickly as possible. I note that the Opposition is similarly eager to introduce the reform as quickly as possible, which is why I was so intrigued that Opposition members 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27755
parried for so long in relation to a single point of order. Earlier the Opposition attempted to suspend standing orders to bring on the debate. Presumably that was done to impact upon question time today, but that would not have happened in any event.
As is evident from the final paragraph of the motion I have moved, changes to the standing order cannot take effect until Her Excellency the Governor gives assent. There would not have been an opportunity between passing of the resolution by the joint select committee and assent by Her Excellency the Governor to implement the reform. Nevertheless, by resolution of the House today, we will be able to ensure that by the next question time, there will have been time for Her Excellency the Governor to have given her assent to the resolution. Subsequent to that, question time will be conducted in accordance with the amended standing order.
The change to the standing order is intended to facilitate question time. It will limit Ministers to providing answers within five minutes. Should further information be sought from the Minister by the member who asks the question, in accordance with the practice in another place, the Minister will have two additional minutes in which to conclude the answer.
However, the Speaker will always have discretion to halt the clock, presumably because from time to time Oppositions may resort to the sorts of tactics we have just witnessed. Something that should have been dealt with in five minutes took 20 minutes because we had points of order for 15 minutes. That is why the amendment provides the Speaker with discretion to pause the clock. Limiting answers to five minutes means that we may get more than 10 questions and answers during question time. Although the standing order provides for a minimum of 10 questions in 45 minutes in question time, it will be possible to have more than 10 questions within the 45-minute period if answers are short. And I shall keep this presentation much shorter than a normal answer from a Minister.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [4.20 p.m.]: It is interesting that the Government has adopted only one of several recommendations made by the joint select committee of changes to the standing orders. Firstly, no-one can be anything but cynical about what the New South Wales Government is doing with this motion. With probably only six more sitting days on which we will have a question time, the Government has suddenly found a renewed interest in parliamentary reform and other reforms. The Government has introduced donation reforms and is establishing a Parliamentary Budget Office, and now it is imposing time limits during question time. The Government expects to be in Opposition much more than the Coalition expects to be in government after the coming election. Nothing in politics is certain. It seems certain that the Labor Party will lose the election so it is ensuring that it looks after itself—
Mr Michael Daley: Don't forget that we rewrote the standing orders at the beginning of the session.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: That is right, we absolutely did. But where was the change to the standing orders to limit answers in question time to five minutes? I think that matter was considered by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee; I think I proposed it and Government members rejected it.
Mr Michael Daley: So you are saying you would support it. Will you support it today?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: We will vote on the motion at the end of the debate. This motion is simply a cynical measure by the Labor Government to look like it is doing something in respect of parliamentary reform during the final two sitting weeks. The Government has had many opportunities to implement this reform but it failed to do so.
Mr Andrew Fraser: And they've had the numbers on the standing orders committee.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The Government has had the numbers on the standing orders committee and in Parliament. It is a sad end to the member for Riverstone's time in Parliament.
Mr Chris Hartcher: A distinguished career.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The member for Riverstone has had a distinguished career with, admittedly, a few speed bumps along the way.
Mr Chris Hartcher: Big ones actually. 27756 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Yes. One example is when he was not appointed to the position of Speaker.
Mr Chris Hartcher: And the Cecil Hills High School story came out.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: No—
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I remind Opposition members that the member for Murrumbidgee has the call.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I think not being appointed as Speaker was the biggest speed bump. I do not think he has fully recovered from that.
Mr Andrew Fraser: It was very sad.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Yes, it was. The member for Riverstone went from being important to not quite so important.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will direct his comments through the Chair.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: This is a sad way for the Leader of the House to end his days in Parliament. Do not get me wrong—we are pleased that he is ending his days in Parliament. It is a good day for democracy and a good day for good government in New South Wales. The joint standing committee made several recommendations but, interestingly, the Government selected only one of them. It is fascinating that the Government has chosen not to implement a couple of other interesting recommendations.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Which ones are those?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: One relates to the position of Assistant-Speaker. The committee recommended that there be a provision for two Assistant-Speakers; one would be a Government member and the other would be a non-Government member. The Government chose not to amend the standing orders to make that provision effective at the next sitting because it would have required either the member for Menai or the member for The Entrance to stand down and be replaced with a non-Government member. The member for Lismore and the member for Port Stephens would have been terrific candidates for the position of Assistant-Speaker. However, we know that Labor is about two things: power and money.
A Government member would have had to take a pay cut, admittedly for only four or five months, but every dollar counts for members of the Labor Party and it did not want to upset people. The member for Menai is one of the few Labor members who has not announced that she will not be contesting the election. If she had had to step down from the position of Assistant-Speaker that might have tipped her over the edge and increased to 16 the number of Labor members who have decided not to contest the next election. It is interesting that the Government chose not to adopt that measure. Another interesting recommendation would have required the chair of the Public Accounts Committee to be a non-Government member. Does anyone want to guess who the chair—
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Apart from the fact that this is incredibly boring and an incredible waste of time, and that the member for Murrumbidgee is breaching—
Mr Andrew Fraser: It's your motion.
Mr Michael Daley: I am talking about the contribution of the member for Murrumbidgee. It is just boring.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: It's a boring kind of standing order.
Mr Michael Daley: The House is considering a simple item: that the standing orders be amended as proposed by the Leader of the House. It is very clear. What the committee may or may not have deliberated on, which has not been put before the House, is entirely irrelevant. I ask you to direct the member for Murrumbidgee to return to the leave of the motion. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27757
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The Minister's point of order related to relevance. I uphold his point of order wholeheartedly. The member for Murrumbidgee will return to the leave of the motion.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I apologise, Madam Assistant-Speaker. I understand that you have announced that you will not be contesting the next election. I have been corrected by Coalition members. It is hard to keep track of the number of Government members who have announced that they will not be contesting the election.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! Again I ask the member for Murrumbidgee to return to the leave of the motion.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I was a member of the joint select committee. This motion has come out of one of the committee's many recommendations. I think I am completely within my rights, and it is relevant to the motion, to talk about some of the measures that have not been introduced.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will confine his remarks to the leave of the motion.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Another interesting measure would have required the chair of the Public Accounts Committee to be a non-Government member. I have asked members to guess who would be required to resign if the standing orders were changed in that way.
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order—
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.
Mr Michael Daley: I make the same point of order relating to relevance, upon which you ruled earlier.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: What was the number?
Mr Michael Daley: It is Standing Order 76.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I remind the member for Murrumbidgee that he has 12 minutes and 50-odd seconds speaking time remaining.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: The Leader of the House raised the issue of the joint select committee. Any recommendations that came out of that committee are fair game in this debate.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! The motion moved by the Leader of the House is very specific in its nature. I draw the attention of all members to the content of that motion, particularly that of the member for Murrumbidgee.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Who is the chair of the Public Accounts Committee? It is none other than the member for Blacktown. He would have to resign his position and a non-Government member would have to be appointed. There would a consequence in terms of salary. I do not think my contribution should be limited to the amendment to the standing orders set out in this motion.
Mr Gerard Martin: You never turned up there, you whinger! You bludged on that committee!
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I will continue to make my contribution. Perhaps the most offensive thing is that the Premier, having given notice of this motion earlier, is absent from the Chamber. Where is she? She gave a speech—
Mr Gerard Martin: Tell us about your attendance record at the select committee.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I do not think the member for Bathurst was at any of the meetings I attended. The Premier gave notice of this motion earlier today, but she could not be bothered to debate it. She answered a Dorothy Dixer in the House on 7 September trumpeting all the reforms that she was going to introduce as part of 27758 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
her new paradigm in Parliament. She was proud of the Government's record of reform but what has it brought forward? It has brought forward one amendment to the standing orders. She made all sorts of promises in her speech, one of which was, "I offer to the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to discuss the joint standing committee's final report when it is received with a view to forming a joint and bipartisan response." That is typical empty rhetoric. We were given notice of this motion prior to question time. That demonstrates the low and contemptuous attitude of the Government to anything in New South Wales, including this Parliament.
The Premier proposed that on 7 September—and I do not recall that the Opposition opposed it—and since then the Government has taken every opportunity to be duplicitous. The joint select committee finalised its report with a resolution to go to the Legislative Assembly standing orders committee but that was not done. Instead, the Premier has simply introduced one of the changes without any consultation. The promise of the Premier to consult the Leader of the Opposition is again, like most things, empty. If only the Government concentrated on fixing some of the problems in New South Wales as much as it concentrated on preparing for Opposition.
I understand why the Minister for Police objects; it is because John Robertson is on his way to this House. That again demonstrates that the Labor Party is preparing for who might be the Leader of the Opposition if there is a change in government in March. The Minister should have concentrated on police and sent police into western New South Wales, in particular, to the Griffith Local Area Command, which was not given any additional strength this time. Government members are completely pre-occupied with money and power. As I have said before, there is only one amendment because further changes would cost members of the Government money.
Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 76, relevance. The member for Murrumbidgee is talking about everything else but this motion. This motion is relatively straightforward, and one would have thought the Opposition would support it. The member for Murrumbidgee is one of the worst offenders for taking points of orders in relation to the length of Minister's answers. I would have thought he would favour this motion. He is not addressing the motion before the House, and I ask you to bring him to order.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I uphold the point of order. I was wondering what the police numbers in Griffith had to do with Ministers having five minutes to reply to questions during question time. The member for Murrumbidgee will return to the leave of the motion. I order him to confine his remarks to the motion or to resume his seat.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The question is simple: Why is the Government introducing this motion? I do not have to speak only to the motion. Surely it is relevant that the Government has moved this motion with only two more sitting weeks left in this session. The Government has had 15½ years to change the standing orders. It is three years since the last standing orders committee met and changed the standing orders. The Government has had plenty of time to move this motion. This is simply cynical politics which goes to all of the problems in New South Wales. The salary of the member for The Entrance, who is in the Chamber, was in jeopardy if other changes to the standing orders were made. I notice that he does not even realise his salary was in jeopardy.
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Standing Order 73 clearly states that personal reflections on members of this House are out of order other than by way of substantive motion.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I uphold the point of order. For the final time, I ask the member for Murrumbidgee to return to the leave of the motion. If he has nothing further to contribute, I will call another speaker.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Why do people in New South Wales hate this Government and think that police, education, health and transport have been handled badly? It is because the Government is only interested in power and money. The Opposition will not oppose these changes, but why were other changes recommended by the joint select committee not made? This change comes from the joint select committee, which the member for Riverstone admitted, so I am being relevant to this motion. Two of the other recommendations would affect the salaries of Labor members, and that is why the Government did not make those changes. It is simply protecting its own members by making sure they get additional salary so as not to upset them. That is typical of the cynical politics that has cost this State so much.
Mr Grant McBride: You are admitting defeat! 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27759
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: We are admitting defeat?
Mr Grant McBride: Yes.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Because?
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! If the member for Murrumbidgee does not have anything further to say to the motion he will resume his seat.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: It is simple, cynical politics. I am sorry the member for Riverstone has to leave Parliament with this last bit of cynical and terrible reform that will blight his bumpy parliamentary career.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [4.36 p.m.]: Madam Assistant-Speaker—
Mr Michael Daley: At least he might be a little bit more humorous!
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I acknowledge the interjection of the Minister for Police; that sort of praise needs to be recorded. I will say something, with the leave of the member for Riverstone, because I said as an aside last night that the time should come to pay some tribute to him for his long service as father of this House. Most people would not remember his hard job when he took over from Frank Walker as Minister for Community Services in relation to what had occurred in the Department of Community Services.
Mr Michael Daley: And as Minister for Education and Training after he took over from you. After you closed so many schools he had to rebuild the whole show.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: No. It needs to be acknowledged, but I will not go into any detail as only the Minister would ever wish to tell that story. He also had the difficult portfolio of Minister for Education and Training, and as Speaker. He has brought essential good humour to the difficult discharge of his duties and as father of the House. I say to the Minister for Police that I doubt I will ever make the same sort of tribute to him, but that is by the way. The genesis of this standing order goes back to the former member for Ashfield, Paul Whelan. When Labor was last in Opposition, he moved an amendment to insert the word "directly" before the word "relevant" in an attempt to make sure that Mr Speaker would sit down Ministers whom the member for Ashfield disagreed with. When the Labor Party took office in 1995 the then member for Ashfield stopped moving that amendment to the standing orders. Somehow it was an amendment to standing orders that the then member for Ashfield no longer felt relevant to the good order and conduct of the House.
Since 1995 the existing standing orders in relation to ministerial answers have served this Government well. This Government believes they have been adequate otherwise it would have amended them. This particular standing order in relation to question time has not been amended by this Government because it thought it had served it well. That was not the case in the Legislative Council, where the standing order was the same: it allowed unlimited time for Ministers to answer questions. Michael Egan, as Treasurer, was well known for his blatant abuse of the unlimited time given to Ministers and the Legislative Council finally rose in revolt on a motion moved by the Hon. Michael Gallacher, which introduced a time limit in the Legislative Council standing orders of one minute for a question and four minutes for an answer. It is that precedent that the Government now seeks to follow in the Legislative Assembly.
Mr David Harris: That is right—such a good idea.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the member for Wyong interjects, it was such a good idea and it was moved. It was opposed by the Labor Party in the Legislative Council at the time—they voted against it—but the combined crossbench and Opposition succeeded in carrying the day. That was all of nearly 10 years ago. It has been in the Legislative Council for almost 10 years, yet it has never inspired this Government to look at the standing order of the same nature in this House. Suddenly, in November of 2010, in the last days of this particular Parliament, the Government puts this amendment before the House.
The concept is a sound one. I do not think anybody would disagree with the concept that there needs to be some regulation of the time allowed for answers to questions, otherwise one particular answer could take up the entire time—and that did happen. The standing order that requires that there be 10 questions asked in question time was introduced by Tim Moore when he was Leader of the House. The issue that Tim Moore remembered was that Barry Unsworth had, as Premier, organised himself to be asked a Dorothy Dixer, which 27760 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
took up the entire time. Until the 10 question rule was introduced, question time was for 45 minutes, and however many questions could be asked in that 45 minute period, at the end of 45 minutes question time stopped. Tim Moore amended the rules to make it 45 minutes or 10 questions, whichever is the greater, and that is why we at least get 10 questions and we often go over the 45-minute period.
However, the concept of limitation of answers was never introduced by Tim Moore and it has never been introduced by the Government. This particular standing order had its genesis in allegations of governmental abuse under Barry Unsworth, in the last days of the Barry Unsworth Government in 1987, which the Leader of the House will recall—I think he was still Minister for Community Services then. The changes were brought about not in the Greiner Government from 1988 to 1991 but after Nick Greiner stepped down and the Fahey Government took office, and was in minority government, when there were extensive negotiations about the standing orders with the crossbench and the Independents.
The tragedy of the proposed amendment put by the Premier today is the sheer cynicism that underlies it. After 15½ years of using the standing orders to its own advantage, the Government now believes that the standing orders need amendment in one crucial area. As the member for Murrumbidgee said, they have not accepted the other recommendations of the joint committee that was set up at the instigation of the Premier. Not one of those recommendations has been accepted or has been put to the House by the Government because those recommendations would in some cases result in members of the Government losing salary. What the Government has put up is one amendment and one only, and that is the one now before the House.
Simply put, it is the proposal that an answer to a question must not exceed five minutes and, at the conclusion of the Minister's answer, the member who asked the question may, at the discretion of the Speaker, seek additional information. The Minister's response is not to exceed a further two minutes. That too is based on the practice in the Legislative Council where, once the answer proceeds for four minutes, if the Minister has not finalised the answer in that period, government members in the Legislative Council stand and ask the Minister to expand upon the answer he has given, which allows the Minister a further period of time. The practice of the Legislative Council is to be expressed in written form in the standing order as proposed by the Premier.
Essentially, what we have before us is only one recommendation of the joint standing committee. That recommendation has been adopted in the Legislative Council and the Government has allowed it to sit in the Legislative Council and reach maturity—like wine. The Government has allowed 10 years to iron out the bugs, 10 years for the wine to mature. This is a Government that believes in reflection, careful consideration, good deliberation—
Mr David Harris: Good governance.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: No, nobody has ever accused this Government of that, but it certainly is a Government that has in this case allowed for very mature reflection and, on mature reflection, the New South Wales Coalition is not opposing this particular—
Mr Michael Daley: Then sit down and spare us the pain.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: No, no. I heard the member for Maroubra on police this afternoon—that was enough for me.
Mr Michael Daley: The truth hurts.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Gosford didn't get any; Terrigal didn't get any.
Mr Michael Daley: How do you know?
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Well, tell me.
Mr Michael Daley: I will—come and see us.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I will be around tomorrow. The New South Wales Coalition does not oppose this amendment, but it is entitled to ask, as everybody will ask, why it is coming forward at this time. I have nothing but admiration for the Leader of the House and I would like to hear his explanation as to why, after 15½ years in government and after seeing the practice in operation for 10 years in the Legislative Council, 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27761
it is now brought before this House in the final two weeks of the sitting of the Parliament before the March 2011 election. No-one wants to be cynical, but if ever there was an opportunity to be, a cynical person could well say that members opposite do not believe that they will be in government in 2011.
Mr Michael Daley: And that would not be you—not a cynical bone in your body!
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: No-one has ever accused me of cynicism, and the member for Maroubra well knows that. The Government has a case to answer.
Mr David Harris: Speed up—there's only nine minutes to go!
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: No, we are not trying to talk it out; I just enjoy having a good receptive audience. The members have been a lovely audience this afternoon and I thank them for that.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.49 p.m.]: It has already been indicated by the Leader of Opposition Business that we will not be opposing the motion, but I reiterate the questions I asked during the points of order taken when the motion was first put by the Leader of Government Business a little time ago: Why was this not put back, as guaranteed by the Premier, to the standing orders committee? I draw the attention of the House to a media release dated 7 September 2010 from the Premier of New South Wales headed "Changes to the NSW Parliament". In that particular release, Ms Keneally said that she wanted the process to be a bipartisan effort by the Parliament. She continued:
Today I have written to the Leader of the Opposition inviting him to meet me to consult over the terms of reference and membership before the Government puts a resolution to the Parliament to establish the Committee.
That was done and the membership was then changed in another place to include a joint select committee, which would decide on the standing orders of both Houses. After a bit of a kerfuffle—and I think it was referred to by the member for Murrumbidgee and Leader of Opposition Business—it was decided that those in the upper House did not want us deciding their standing orders, and of course we did not want them deciding our standing orders. The committee made recommendations and the majority of them were adopted by this Parliament— I suggest quite properly because our Standing Orders Committee formed part of the joint select committee. Recommendations came before this House and were adopted.
In fact, seven standing orders were nominated to be discussed by our Standing Orders Committee and therefore put to a vote in this House. The first provided for two Assistant-Speakers, one to be a Government member and one a non-Government member. As stated by the member for Murrumbidgee, at the moment we have two Assistant-Speakers, both of whom are Government members. We are somewhat curious as to why the Government did not bring in this particular provision with the change it brought in earlier today. Is it because, Mr Assistant-Speaker, you or the member for Menai would have to be removed from that position because the standing order would mean that one of those Assistant-Speakers would have to come from this side?
Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: This matter has been raised on previous occasions but members opposite continue to labour the point.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: What is your point of order?
Mr John Aquilina: The point of order is that we have before us a very straightforward and simple provision. We are debating a particular issue and we cannot debate a whole lot of matters that are not before the House. The Parliament just does not work like that. I ask you to bring the member back to the leave of the motion.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I am certain the member for Coffs Harbour will return to the leave of the motion.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: I point out to the Leader of the House that in his contribution to this debate he raised the fact and acknowledged that seven provisions were forwarded. We are quite entitled to ask why the other six provisions were not also brought forward.
Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: The member for Coffs Harbour is not entitled to make claims that are simply not true. The member is being totally irrelevant in terms of this debate. Not only is he irrelevant because he is debating matters that are not before the leave of the House; he is also making statements about matters that have not occurred in this Chamber. 27762 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for Coffs Harbour has the call.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The two positions we are curious about are those of the Assistant-Speaker and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which were to be filled by members of the Opposition. One attracts a salary and expenses of office of $44,000, as you would be well aware, Mr Assistant-Speaker, and the other receives $18,000. The reality is that the proposal for those positions was not put before the House by the Premier today by way of amendment to standing orders because there would be a turf war of unprecedented proportions in the Labor Party. Two retiring members would lose a salary of office between now and the election.
The change proposed by the Premier, who guaranteed bipartisan support and that the Standing Orders Committee would discuss the changes, means it is basically at the discretion of the Speaker whether supplementary questions can be asked. Standing order 131 (3) proposed that at the conclusion of the Minister's answer—
Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: Obviously the member has no intention of complying with the standing orders of this House. I have taken several points of order and he is continuing to flout your ruling. I move that the motion be put.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: You cannot move that motion. You do not even know the standing orders.
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta) [4.55 p.m.]: I move:
That the question be now put (S.O. 86).
The House divided.
Ayes, 43
Mr Amery Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Borger Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Brown Mr Hickey Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Hornery Mr Sartor Ms Burton Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Collier Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Coombs Mr Lalich Mr Terenzini Mr Corrigan Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Costa Mr McBride Mr Whan Mr Daley Dr McDonald Ms D'Amore Ms McKay Tellers, Ms Firth Mr McLeay Mr Ashton Mr Furolo Ms McMahon Mr Martin
Noes, 36
Mr Aplin Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Ayres Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Stokes Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Stoner Mr Besseling Mr Kerr Mr J. H. Turner Mr Cansdell Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr J. D. Williams Mr Dominello Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Piccoli Mr Fraser Mr Piper Ms Goward Mr Provest Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Mr Baumann Mr Hartcher Mr Roberts Mr George 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27763
Pairs
Ms Beamer Mr Maguire Mr Gibson Mr Merton Mr Koperberg Mr Souris
Question resolved in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER: Order! The question now is, That the motion be agreed to.
Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.04 p.m.]: One and a half hours of the time of this Parliament was wasted in a gross abuse of the standing orders of this Parliament. Opposition members took 1½ hours to argue their point, even though they were in agreement with this relatively straightforward matter. Even though Opposition members agreed with the motion they took almost an hour and a half to debate the issue, to interject and to take points of order. It is an absolute disgrace that they behaved in that way.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Order! Pursuant to the earlier suspension of standing orders the House will now consider General Business Orders of the Day for Bills until 5.30 p.m.
CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY AMENDMENT (INDEPENDENT ELECTION COSTINGS) BILL 2010
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 23 April 2010.
Mr DAVID HARRIS [5.05 p.m.] I move:
That this debate be now adjourned.
The House divided.
Ayes, 43
Mr Amery Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Borger Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Brown Mr Hickey Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Hornery Mr Sartor Ms Burton Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Collier Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Coombs Mr Lalich Mr Terenzini Mr Corrigan Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Costa Mr McBride Mr Whan Mr Daley Dr McDonald Ms D'Amore Ms McKay Tellers, Ms Firth Mr McLeay Mr Ashton Mr Furolo Ms McMahon Mr Martin 27764 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Noes, 35
Mr Aplin Mr Hartcher Mr Roberts Mr Ayres Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mrs Hopwood Mr Stokes Mr Besseling Mr Humphries Mr Stoner Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr J. H. Turner Mr Constance Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Dominello Mr Page Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr Piccoli Mr R. C. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Piper Tellers, Ms Goward Mr Provest Mr Baumann Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Mr George
Pairs
Ms Beamer Mr Maguire Mr Gibson Mr O'Farrell Mr Koperberg Mr Souris
Motion for adjournment of debate agreed to.
Debate adjourned and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (KURING-GAI CAMPUS) BILL 2009
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 23 April 2010.
Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.13 p.m.]: The Government opposes the private member's bill of the member for Ku-ring-gai, the Leader of the Opposition, just as it did when he introduced a similar bill in 2006. The Department of Education and Training currently is negotiating with the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS] for the possible acquisition of a portion of the site that was identified through an extensive needs analysis process. I make clear to the House that the department's acquisition, should it proceed, would continue to be used appropriately for educational purposes. Acquiring more of the site than necessary would be wasteful and would rob the local community of useful land. I shall put this issue into context by relating some recent history.
In 2005 the university, in seeking to redevelop its Ku-ring-gai campus, submitted a rezoning application to Ku-ring-gai Council. This led to lobbying from some members of the local community to prevent the rezoning and possible sale of the land for medium density housing development. After dispute and delay at council level, the Minister for Planning eventually took control of development of the site as a State major project. In 2006 the member for Ku-ring-gai introduced a private member's bill seeking to ensure that the Ku-ring-gai campus continues to be used solely for educational purposes. That bill was soundly defeated in late 2007. On 31 October 2007 the Department of Planning released a site study and concept plan for the site. The concept plan included a residential component comprising 440 dwellings.
On 19 June 2008 the Minister for Planning announced approval for the redevelopment of the University of Technology, Sydney Ku-ring-gai Campus for mixed use, including commercial, educational and residential purposes, while retaining the existing main building. The Department of Education and Training is investigating whether it will acquire a portion of the site for the purposes of constructing a high school. It is no secret that the department is confronting capacity issues at some schools in the northern Sydney region caused by increasing student numbers and more parents choosing public education for their children. The construction of a new high school represents a significant investment of capital and, as such, it is prudent for the Government to conduct a rigorous evaluation of all possible options for expanding public education in northern Sydney before deciding to pursue this one. Other options that need to be considered include extensive refurbishment of existing schools.
Once these investigations are complete the Government will announce whether it intends to acquire part of the University of Technology, Sydney site for the purposes of building a school. I stress again that, 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27765
should the department's acquisition proceed, it would involve only part of the site: acquisition of the whole site is not needed for a high school. This bill undermines work that is already underway and would lock the Government into acquiring a piece of land much larger than is needed.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [5.18 p.m.]: The purpose of the University of Technology (Kuring-gai Campus) Bill 2010 is to ensure that the Kuring-gai campus of the University of Technology, Sydney [UTS] is retained for educational purposes. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for his commitment and persistence on this issue, having tried on three occasions to have legislation passed to protect valuable community assets at the University of Technology, Sydney Lindfield site. This site should and must be preserved for educational purposes. That can be achieved in two ways. One way is for the Minister for Education and Training to refuse to sign off on any development under section 18 (2) of the University of Technology, Sydney, Act, which states:
(2) The Council shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, alienate, mortgage, charge or demise any lands of the University.
The second way is through the passage of this legislation, in line with the passage of similar legislation 11 years ago in respect of the St George campus of the University of New South Wales. That process is a precedent set by this Labor Government for passing the bill being debated today. The site of the Kuring-gai campus was purchased by the New South Wales Government for £44,000 and since 1961 has been used for the purpose of education. William Balmain Teachers College opened in 1971 before becoming the Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education in 1974. The University of Technology, Sydney, or UTS, was established in 1990 and at that point the Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education became its Kuring-gai campus. The transfer of the land to the university of technology was completed in exchange for $1.
With thousands and thousands of extra new dwellings being forced upon the Ku-ring-gai council area, investment in social infrastructure by the Government is not being undertaken to the extent necessary to accommodate the area's increased population. As the member for Ku-ring-gai pointed out in his agreement in principle speech, the Director General of the Department of Education and Training has confirmed the need for additional educational facilities in the northern region. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Education and Training acknowledged that during his speech. In a recent response to one of my written questions on Killara High School the Minister for Education and Training also admitted that, while this fine local school was intended to cater for 1,080 students, it now has 1,470 students.
Despite lobbying by the school and me, little funding has been allocated to help educate our local children at Killara High School and at other schools in my electorate. I recognise that the outstanding academic performance of Killara High School has been achieved in spite of having to cope with a veritable city of demountable classrooms and a lack of open space. I look forward to the school hopefully being able to better utilise Crown land across the road next to Koola Park in Koola Avenue, in conjunction with its use by the Killara Scouts and members of the local community. Such a cooperative measure would assist in alleviating some of the pressure on the school. However, a longer-term solution is required to address the increasing number of school students in the local area that has created significant pressures at Killara High School and other schools across the Davidson, Ku-ring-gai and Willoughby electorates.
Recent press coverage discussing the high level of incarceration in New South Wales reminded me of Mark Twain's line, "Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail", or, as Victor Hugo stated more positively, "He who opens a school door, closes a prison." When it comes to our high school students we should be building for tomorrow. While the provision of education may be expensive, the cost of not investing in education is ultimately more expensive. The Federal Government's expenditure on primary schools through the Building the Education Revolution [BER] Program, which has been so badly mismanaged in New South Wales by the Labor Government, has not flowed through to high schools such as Killara High School. Meanwhile, the New South Wales Government has actually cut its education capital expenditure in the current budget.
Mr David Harris: Not on the Central Coast.
Mr Grant McBride: Not on the Central Coast.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Perhaps not on the Central Coast, but certainly in Liberal electorates.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Davidson does not need the assistance of the member for The Entrance. 27766 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Shamefully, the Labor Government has cut capital expenditure on education in its budget. Part of the University of Technology site at Lindfield clearly is suitable for use as a senior high school. The bill is aimed at protecting the site for much-needed public education use. The Government's delays and failure to commit to using the existing education building constitutes mismanagement and waste of a valuable educational resource. Ironically, this is occurring at a time when the Government has been substantially mismanaging and wasting Federal education funding made available through the Building the Education Revolution Program for constructing new school buildings. The fact that the University of Technology site serves Liberal electorates should not prevent Labor members from supporting this important initiative of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Ku-ring-gai. Bipartisanship is warranted. I challenge Government members to state whether they support education, or do they only support education in Labor electorates, as the member for Wyong seems to suggest?
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Government members will cease interjecting.
Mr Kerry Hickey: He is asking us questions.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): The member for Davidson is not. Government members will come to order.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: In conclusion, I note comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Education and Training that indicate the Department of Education and Training is investigating and, potentially, negotiating the purchase of part of the site. That highly qualified and wishy-washy, vague indication of a possible intention is insufficient after so many years of the issue being on the agenda. His comments are completely inadequate. If the Government wanted to show bona fides, or good faith, it would have approached the Leader of the Opposition and sought to negotiate a positive outcome for the northern Sydney community. Instead the Government just offers some vague possibility in the knowledge that the State is about to head into a period of caretaker government and that the issue will be left over and determined by an incoming government. But an even worse prospect is the Government allowing disposal of the entire site, not even protecting a part that in the fullness of time may be considered as the site of an educational facility.
Where are the discussions that should have occurred with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Willoughby and me—the members who represent this area of northern Sydney? Why has there not been an attempt to even protect part of the site? Why does the Government not protect part of the site pending discussions and negotiations? The Government has demonstrated a lack of good faith far too often. The public is awake to Government members—I certainly am—and, after 15 years of putting up with raised expectations being met with broken promises by a Government that takes no interest in electorates represented by Liberal Party members, so is the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that the only answer is this bill. Unlike Government members, the Leader of the Opposition is truly interested in education throughout the whole State.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.27 p.m.]: The Government is considering whether to acquire part of the site of the University of Technology, Sydney, Kuring-gai campus, which I presume is in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Barry O'Farrell. I think that point is pertinent to this whole debate. I emphasise that if the Government proceeds with acquisition of part of the site, following all the necessary checks having been carried out, only part of the site will be needed for the construction of a high school. I would have thought that as Ku-ring-gai is the safest Liberal electorate in New South Wales, so many people would want to live there, ample justification already would exist for an additional high school in the area. It would be irresponsible of the Government to acquire the entire site only to leave most of it idle. That is what this bill, which has been introduced by the member for Ku-ring-gai, apparently seeks to accomplish. Given that the member for Ku-ring-gai aspires to become Premier on 27 March or April, unless Mike Baird makes his move earlier—
Mr David Harris: He will be able to acquire the land.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is right. One would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, would have been capable of formulating a bill to take account of those matters. Acquisition of more of the site than is necessary represents nothing more than a wasteful land grab. The Government is not in the business of conducting wasteful land grabs. Significant community consultation has taken place, contrary to what has been suggested by the member for Davidson. Opposition to the university's plan has not been unanimous. I am told that the University of Technology has been carefully considering the future of the Ku-ring-gai site since 2003. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27767
I do not have a vested interest in this matter. However, my daughter attends the University of Technology, Sydney, and in the next week or so she will graduate with a law degree and a journalism degree. That means that if she writes something and defames someone she will be able to defend herself. That would be following a precedent set in this Parliament. Recently we saw the cosy relationship that journalists have with Opposition members. Was it Edmund Burke who called the media the fourth estate? Which camera should I look at?
Mr Chris Hartcher: All of them.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is great. Opposition members should keep that in mind because they have sold their souls as independent arbiters of what happens in the Parliament. They are the boosters for the fourth estate. There has been consultation, and it has been in all the papers. That is important because, as I said, I have an interest in what happens at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Pursuant to standing order business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______
SUNFLOWER CENTRE
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [5.30 p.m.]: If people have a chronic, severe and, debilitating mental illness they may be suffering from schizophrenia. Did members know that schizophrenia affects about 1 per cent of our population? So that is about 70,000 people in New South Wales. Constituents who need help visit my office on a daily basis. So it was with great concern that I received a letter from Ms Kay Morgan informing me that the Hunter's Sunflower Centre would be forced to close on 30 November this year unless it received more funding. For members who do not know, the Sunflower Centre—that is a lovely name—is part of the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales. At the invitation of Hunter New England Health in 1999, the Schizophrenia Fellowship submitted a grant application to NSW Health to establish a Community Development Program in the Hunter region; and, happily, a grant of $37,173 was received.
The centre has shifted around the Hunter, seeking affordable rent and doing landlords a favour by making their humble premises welcoming to visitors. Staffed on a part-time basis with a dedicated team of volunteers, the centre has struggled to exist on annual grants of $37,173, with a recent small consumer price index increase, since 1999. Another grant for expanded funding was submitted to NSW Health; unfortunately the application was unsuccessful. This has made life difficult as the cost of living has risen and the popularity of this worthy centre increased once word got around of the help it provided to people with schizophrenia. There has also been an increase in demand for meetings and talks to raise awareness of mental health issues, education programs and one-on-one support in areas that are still not serviced by other mental health groups, including mental health non-government organisations, such as the Port Stephens and the upper Hunter.
In her letter Ms Morgan said that the current funding was insufficient to sustain the running costs of the centre and it would be forced to close its doors on 1 December. She said that the centre needed to obtain further funding of $25,000 per annum. I was looking at the letter while I was in the Chamber when the member for Cessnock saw the letter and said, "Sonya, I've seen this letter and I know what a wonderful job the Sunflower Centre does for people in my area. Let's try to help them." I agreed and said, "Yes, let's do what we can". We understand the need for extra services for people with mental illness in the Hunter, so we decided to take action. I received the letter about a week ago. As I was worried I approached the Minister for Health about the issue, and she referred me to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). When I approached the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health) about this issue she said that the Minister for the Hunter was dealing with the issue. I said, "That's fine but a number of members in the Hunter and their constituents have been touched by this centre. We would like to help to ensure that additional funding is provided to keep the centre open for all of our constituents."
I was concerned that action would not be taken quickly enough, so a few days ago I gave notice of a motion advocating for the centre and future funding. Today the Minister for the Hunter and the member for Swansea issued a press release announcing that $30,000 would be provided to support the Sunflower Centre for this year. That is great. I am sure the Minister for the Hunter was simply remiss in not inviting the member for Cessnock, the member for Charlestown and me to be involved, given the interest I had taken in this matter. It is 27768 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
fantastic that suddenly, virtually a day after I gave notice of the motion, the funding was announced. Nevertheless, I am pleased that $30,000 has been allocated to the centre to keep it open for another year. However, I am concerned for people with schizophrenia in the Hunter and that the centre remains open for more than one year. I will be advocating on behalf of the Sunflower Centre and all Hunter residents to keep the centre open forever because it does good work. I take my hat off to Ms Kay Morgan and Ms Nadine Farrell for their efforts and work to keep the centre open. Well done!
ASQUITH BOWLING AND RECREATION CLUB
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [5.35 p.m.]: Today I pay tribute to Asquith Bowling and Recreation Club, which is a fantastic venue in my electorate and a shining star in the club industry. It is a small and friendly club but it has professional staff who make people feel at home; in the club people can be a name, not just a number. I am a member of the Asquith ladies bowling club and I can attest that that is the case. The club was proud to be the ClubsNSW Small Club of the Year in 2007, as well as winning awards for outstanding support of the local community and encouragement of amateur sport. In 2008 the club won a highly commended award from ClubsNSW for environmental sustainability. That was a great achievement because it had opposition from not only small clubs but also clubs of all sizes throughout the State.
This year the club celebrated 60 years of serving the community. From 1950 to 2010 the Asquith Bowling and Recreation Club has served the community extremely well, and there were many celebrations for this event. The month of celebrations was highlighted by a formal dinner and dance on Saturday 3 July and a sentimental Back to Asquith day on Sunday 4 July. Other events included a men's bowls event on 30 June, with $3,000 in prize money sponsored by Tooheys; a free lunch for senior members on 14 July; a free rock and roll night with Sam Ferraro on 10 July; and a free kids disco on Saturday 24 July. Special bowls events included the women's pairs carnival on 9 July, which was a great fun day, a pro-am bowls and breakfast on Sunday 18 July and a mixed sixtieth anniversary bowls event on Sunday 25 July.
I have taken up bowling recently. Indeed, I am a proud member of the parliamentary bowls team. We have played a couple of social games, one at Forestville and one at Ettalong, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I had my tutorage at Asquith Bowling and Recreation Club. I pay tribute to the teachers and the bowlers for the support they give each other. Asquith Bowling and Recreation Club has one of the largest bowling memberships in the metropolitan area, and it boasts three excellent grass greens. It has a strong commitment to junior bowlers, and provides weekly coaching and the use of training bowls. All junior club members receive a club shirt and a club jacket. The sport of lawn bowls is supported in many ways and the club invites new players to learn.
I have had time to participate in only one Ladies Day tournament, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It was a wonderful day to make friends. The opportunities for bowls are very many. Asquith Bowls and Recreation Club was referred to in the July 2010 Bowls NSW magazine by Don Wall, a former president of the Asquith Bowling Club. He wrote:
The Asquith BC, formed in 1950, incorporated in 1972 and later named Asquith Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd, is celebrating its 60th Anniversary during 2010.
It has made a major contribution towards the development of lawn bowls in NSW.
The late Bill Wall, a member of the Hornsby BC, played a significant role in establishing the Asquith BC.
His eldest son, Don, who has been President of the Asquith Men's BC for the past 16 years, made it a practice of visiting his parents every Saturday morning …
On one occasion he said to his father, "Are you still enjoying your bowls, dad?" His dad said:
Yes, it's a wonderful sport, son, but I am finding it difficult to secure a game at Hornsby on Saturdays, due to the increase in membership since the end of World War II.
A decision was made there and then that they should establish a club at Asquith. Asquith Bowling Club is an extremely social and strong club that offers dining facilities and event facilities. I enjoy my time as a member learning how to play the very skilful game of bowls.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): I congratulate the member for Hornsby on being a member of the parliamentary bowls club. It is good to know that she is taking such a keen interest in bowls, which is a popular sport throughout the State. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27769
COMFORT WOMEN
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for the Arts) [5.40 p.m.]: I highlight an issue that has long concerned me and deeply affects many Korean women and the greater Korean community who live in my electorate of Strathfield. These citizens have worked to build the electorate in which I live through business and commerce, support for education and their strong and active participation in community associations. They are good family people: fathers, mothers, grandparents and individuals who provide a significant contribution to the backbone of the electorate of Strathfield and its civic life.
I spoke about this subject in this House in 2008: the treatment of women prisoners of war by Japan as so-called comfort women during World War II. The Japanese military forced them to work in brothels to service the Japanese. At that time I was compelled to speak after meeting one of these frail but incredibly resilient Korean women. I heard about her personal story. If ever in our time there were women who underwent the sufferings of the saints, who gave up, hour by hour, vast fractions of their souls to their captors, it was these young women. They were robbed and stripped of their youth, made to go where no-one should ever be asked to go. The women were violated in body and spirit, and treated like military supplies. I am advised that one, in particular, testified to having to sexually service 15 soldiers on weekdays and more than 50 soldiers on weekends.
Grandma Kim Hak Soon became the first person to speak publicly about the existence of comfort women. It has since become public knowledge as other victim survivors have come forward and as groups have been founded to demand justice for these women. In 2000 the United Nations published a report on the subject entitled "Comfort Women Speak: Testimony by Sex Slaves of the Japanese Military". In addition, many Western nations have called for Japan to apologise, including United States of America lawmakers, the Canadian and Dutch governments, Taiwan and even political figures from within Japan, but to no avail.
I'll forgive, but I cannot forget … this is about the wrongs of the past and not about Japan.
So said Jan Ruff-O'Herne, an Australian World War II survivor who was a so-called "comfort woman". Japan has apologised for its military involvement in crimes against women during World War II but denies responsibility for running a whole raft of military brothels, staffed by prisoners of war, before its surrender to the allied forces in 1945. In those brothels up to 200,000 women—many, many of whom were Korean—were kidnapped and forced to work in those brothels. Others—including the Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian and even Australian women, I am advised—were subjected to unspeakable degradation. Those women had to try to teach their own children to be humane, good citizens despite their own personal terrible experience. As mothers and grandmothers they are responsible for those that come after them.
Many continue to suffer the damage, both mental and physical, including the nightmares and the acute stress and fear of trauma sufferers. Amazingly, Japan's position has not changed. No apology has been forthcoming despite the calls from many of the world's nations. Today on Remembrance Day, 11 November 2010, as we pause to reflect on those who bravely served their countries, we also remember the horror and lasting suffering that all wars bring. To say "sorry" does not diminish a person; rather it enhances their character and speaks of their integrity. In the words of the Dutch botanist Paul Boese:
Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
What harm would it do the great nation of Japan to apologise to the surviving few elderly women who have carried their unbroken spirits into the twenty-first century to bear witness to the resilience of the human condition? Surely Naoto Kan, Prime Minister of Japan, could dignify his country's history by acknowledging and apologising to the comfort women. I will write to the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Kan, and ask for an unequivocal apology to these women. I will write to our Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, requesting that he support my call on behalf of the people of New South Wales.
COMBOYNE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.45 p.m.]: I express concerns that have been put to me by a group of farmers from the Comboyne Plateau in my electorate of Oxley. Comboyne is a particularly beautiful part of the State that is renowned for its dairy industry. It has very rich and fertile volcanic soils, where anything will grow, high rainfall and still has some of the State's finest dairy farms, as well as a 27770 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
range of other agricultural and horticultural pursuits. The primary industry group of Comboyne met with me during my recent visit to the delightful village of Comboyne, and told me of a move by the Government to implement the Comboyne Natural Resource Management Plan.
Farmers of the Comboyne Plateau have been through particularly tough times since the deregulation of the dairy industry. They went from receiving approximately 50¢ a litre of milk to 30¢ or even lower at times, which was devastating to the community. They are starting to get back on their feet, principally by working harder and by having larger herds of dairy cattle to increase the volume of milk they produce. Some dairy farmers have not survived and some of the local community cooperative endeavours have also not survived, including the ownership of the local store and produce store, which were sold off. So this district has really done it tough because of those changes to the dairy industry. The Natural Resource Management Plan that is being pursued by the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, the Department of Climate Change and Water and others is of real concern to those farmers. As I say, they have survived some tough times but some of what is proposed will make life considerably tougher for them to continue in this really important industry to our State.
I understand that the plan proposes a 50-metre buffer each side of each stream—and there are many of them—which are to be called riparian zones, on the Comboyne Plateau farming properties, and that is of great concern to farmers. That buffer on either side would effectively quarantine huge amounts of their land. I understand we are all about water quality and minimising the turbidity in the various parts of the catchment, which mostly feeds into the Hastings catchment or the Manning, but to have that quarantined zone on either side of every watercourse on the plateau is nonsensical. It has been suggested that farmers have to fence off these riparian zones and keep the weeds out of them. That means the farmers would have a massive workload and expense for zero productivity and income. I also understand that the objective is to have all the remnant vegetation on the plateau joined up, which is a noble objective but probably less than practical, given the large extent of farmland on the Comboyne Plateau.
I am of the view that farmers are amongst the original conservationists; they have an interest in preserving the quality of their land and water. If governments chose to work with them and involve them in the process, get some practical plans and strategies together and support them through funding and other assistance, we would achieve some environmental good. However, what is proposed in this plan has caused widespread concern in the farming community on the Comboyne. I call on the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment and the Minister for Water to address those concerns.
MAMMA LENA AND DINO GUSTIN FOUNDATION
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.50 p.m.]: This evening I acknowledge the contribution of the Mamma Lena and Dino Gustin Foundation established in 2001 with the express purpose of performing acts of kindness and assistance for people in need. On 26 October this year I was pleased to host the 2010 annual Mamma Lena Foundation Awards at Parliament House at which a number of organisations were presented with grants to assist with their work in the community. The benefactors of this foundation included the Starlight Foundation, which received funding to upgrade in-house television facilities in the Starlight room at Westmead Children's Hospital, and the Room to Read organisation, which received funding to establish a reading room for children in a local school in Zambia.
The Room to Read organisation partners with local communities throughout the developing world to establish libraries and invest in children's education. This wonderful organisation has, over the past 10 years, built 1,000 schools, funded 10,000 libraries, distributed 7.4 million books and provided 8,900 scholarships to girls so that they can attend school. The Bellinger Valley Surf Life Saving Club received funding to purchase a much-needed inflatable rescue boat and the Mary MacKillop Outreach Men's Shed received funding to purchase equipment for a furniture restoration project, and I note that John Columbo, Ken Curtis and Brother Phil Redding were present to accept the grant. Each organisation provided an understanding of how the grant moneys would assist local communities and, as a member of Parliament, it was wonderful to participate and to hear about the great work undertaken by those fantastic organisations. The evening was well attended and it was a pleasure for me to be able to assist the foundation to highlight the great legacy that is passed on every year.
The Mamma Lena and Dino Gustin Foundation was established by Dino Gustin, who later made a sizeable bequest that has enabled the foundation to continue to provide a number of grants and to develop the foundation's website, which provides a chronology of the vast body of work completed by Mamma Lena and Dino during their long and productive lives. These acts of kindness show the selfless contributions made by two 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27771
remarkable human beings from the time they arrived in Australia in 1956 until their deaths in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Interest on funds from the 2008 sale of the Mamma Lena Child Care Centre can now be used to help fulfil the mission of the foundation encompassing the five pillars of help. It is also envisaged that from time to time the foundation may receive gifts and bequests from those in the Italian community.
The activities of the Mamma Lena and Dino Foundation are focused on five pillars of assistance. They are: scholarships that encompass the fields of language, journalism and the arts; naming rights and bequests, which include hospital equipment, special projects and Third World community assistance; special purpose awards inspired by projects in fields as diverse as ecology, literature and the arts; humanitarian support for those who, through their own actions, improve the lives of the less fortunate within Australia and overseas; and helping individuals in need in times of stress. For more than 50 years Mamma Lena and Dino provided assistance and compassion to Italians migrating to Australia. Their tireless work ranged from all aspects of social and financial assistance to fundraising in times of natural disasters. Through Mamma Lena's columns in La Fiamma, an Italian newspaper, and their weeknight radio programs spanning from 1957 to 1985 on 2CH, 2KY and 2SERFM, Mamma Lena and Dino kept the Italian community in Australia informed of current news and social and entertainment events in Australia and Italy. As a brilliant producer of radio programs and organiser of events, Dino galvanised the Italian community to a level of involvement not seen since those memorable years.
For her work, Mamma Lena was awarded an MBE by the Australian Government, the Cross of Cavaliere and the title of Commendatore by the Italian Government. Dino was honoured with the Cross of Cavaliere. I still vividly remember listening to Mamma Lena on Italian radio with my mother in our kitchen—a memory I am sure that many Italian-Australians of my generation share. It is with gratitude and esteem that I thank the board of trustees for its commitment and efforts in keeping the foundation legacy alive. I acknowledge Chairman Joe Buda, OAM; President Michael Cantali, Treasurer Rose Cantali; secretary and public officer Rosalba Gustin, the daughter of Mamma Lena and Dino; as well as board members Peter Campbell, Amelia Capogna, John Orlando, Ivana Smaniotto and advisory board member Anthony Zappia. I look forward to continuing my support of this great foundation and to hosting future annual awards evenings for it.
TRIBUTE TO ZONE COMMANDER SUPERINTENDENT KEITH KING, AFSM
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.55 p.m.]: Last October I attended the retirement function for one of the Central Coast's best known and respected firefighters, Zone Commander Superintendent Keith King, AFSM. The function, which was held at the Gosford Golf Club, was a great success and a fitting tribute to a man who has dedicated his life to serving the people of New South Wales, saving lives and property, and putting back into the community his knowledge and experience. Keith King may be officially retiring from the NSW Fire Brigades after 36 years but, in reality, he will still be giving much of his free time to the community.
Keith joined the NSW Fire Brigades on 13 December 1974. He worked as a firefighter in Sydney fire stations, and later as a station officer at stations in Sydney and regional New South Wales. In May 1991 he was promoted to inspector, working in Sydney and Newcastle, and later transferred to the NSW Fire Brigades Fire Safety Division, inspecting buildings and investigating fires. He achieved his current rank in 1997, taking up the position of zone commander in charge of fire stations on the Central Coast. Keith's appointment to the Central Coast coincided with the Labor Government's decision to prioritise the upgrade and extension of NSW Fire Brigades services across the whole of the Central Coast. This decision started a 10-year building program across the coast that resulted in the provision of fire services on the Central Coast in terms of buildings, equipment and staff of the highest standard.
In the execution of this program there were the usual bumps. However, Keith proved to be an outstanding leader who engendered respect and loyalty from all those he came into contact with. Working with Keith over that decade of expansion of services was an experience that I will always value. We built a rapport and trust that went beyond our official roles, which I believe greatly assisted the delivery of the project. After spending his last day as a fireman, Keith will not give up helping others as he will continue with a number of projects in a volunteer capacity. He will stay involved with the Central Coast Burns Equipment Fund, which has donated $150,000 since 2000 to buy equipment used on burns victims. He will also stay involved with Firepod, a program that he started, which provides people with disabilities equipment they can use in case of a fire. Later this year he will also help to launch a Central Coast burns survivor support group.
Despite the demands of these projects, Mr King said that he was looking forward to spending more time with his family. Keith said that his wife, Gwenda, is pretty happy that he is retiring, as she has been ironing 27772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
NSW Fire Brigades shirts since she was 13 years of age—first for her father, then for Keith, and also for their son who is a firefighter. Firefighting is certainly an important part of the life of this family. While he is happy to have more time for himself, I am sure that Keith will miss the fire brigade. Firemen all over the State not only look after communities but also look after each other. It is like a big family.
Recently, Keith was one of seven NSW Fire Brigades firefighters to receive national honours in recognition of bravery, public service and outstanding contribution to the community and to the NSW Fire Brigades. The Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, presented the honours at a ceremony held at Government House in Sydney. Keith—along with William Clifford, Gary Meers, Vincent Oliver and Alan Walker—received the Australian Fire Service Medal. The Australian Fire Service Medal [AFSM] is one of the highest honours that an Australian firefighter can receive. It recognises the outstanding contribution made by NSW Fire Brigades officers to the community and to the NSW Fire Brigades throughout their careers.
The community holds the efforts of emergency service workers in extremely high regard and this medal is testament to the longstanding dedication and achievement of firemen like Keith while serving and protecting the people of New South Wales. The public sees firefighters battling fires, conducting rescues and attending hazardous material incidents supported by a strong team of operational and non-operational staff. The fire officers of the NSW Fire Brigades who received the Australian Fire Service Medal are worthy and deserving recipients. During his award acceptance, mention was made of Keith's involvement in the formation of the Central Coast Burns Equipment Fund and in helping to raise more than $100,000 for the fund since it was established in 2001. Keith was again honoured earlier this year by the Minister for Emergency Services, Mr Steve Whan, at a special awards ceremony in Sydney. Keith received a commendation for meritorious service for his work in developing the Firepod project, which provides people with disabilities with essential equipment to use in the event of fire.
CHESALON PITTWATER DAY CENTRE
Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [5.59 p.m.]: I would like to inform the House of the incredible work being undertaken by the volunteers at Chesalon Pittwater Day Centre, located on the grounds of St John's Anglican Church in my community of Pittwater. The Pittwater Day Centre is an extremely well-respected and increasingly popular service in the Pittwater community that provides opportunities and assistance to residents suffering from disabling illnesses, dementia and social isolation. The centre also acts as an important outreach service for carers and families seeking respite support and assistance whilst caring for their loved ones. With an ageing and growing population in Pittwater, the need for these services in our community is becoming increasingly important. I cannot sing their praises nor compliment the work the volunteers do highly enough.
It is important that the continuing hard work of the volunteers that makes these services possible is acknowledged and supported. Whilst many community members have contributed to the success of the Pittwater Day Centre over the past 25 years, the current volunteers—including Mark Connell, Pam Gaebel, Eileen Long, Barrie Stewart, Doris White, Eleanor Swansbra, Richard Synge, Diana Woolley, Christine Eagle, Judy Annear, Patricia Desjardine, Michelle Zeng, Margaret Conway, Dina Pivnitskay, Ellen Nicholson, Kaye Samus, Heather Robinson, Maureen Stiples, Margaret Jugl and Trish Clifton—all donate their time on a regular basis and are instrumental in the centre's ongoing success. Their diversity of skills, experience and compassion combine in an array of support that is greatly appreciated by everyone involved. Whether it is offering support or organising activities, these volunteers are familiar faces that provide an essential dose of companionship and enjoyment to the centre's participants. Whilst modesty is often a common trait amongst volunteers, there should not be any hiding from the fact that this is an admirable undertaking and something that every one of them should be enormously proud of.
I would also like to acknowledge the vital contribution of Reverend John Reid and the members of St John's Parish community, my local church, who play an essential role in the operation of the centre. This ongoing partnership between St John's and Chesalon is certainly strong and fruitful, and one that I look forward to seeing continue long into the future. I would also like to acknowledge the fantastic staff of Chesalon, including the Northern Sydney Volunteer Coordinator, Natalie Woodward, the Regional Manager, Helen Hunter, and the Day Centre Coordinator, Carmel Sgro. Their fantastic organisational skills and compassion help this wonderful service operate, and I thank them very much for their efforts.
It is also very important to highlight to the House the wonderful contribution that the Pittwater Day Centre makes to respite services in our community. Far too often carers are the forgotten ones in the provision of aged care services, regularly facing challenges including social isolation, emotional hardship and financial difficulty. However the ongoing efforts of the Pittwater Day Centre's volunteers and the support of St John's 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27773
Church mean that local carers have a friendly place where their loved ones can take part in art classes, dancing, discussions, quizzes and outings whilst they attend to their own needs and have a break from the physical and psychological demands that often accompany such a challenging role.
In saying this, I would also like to recognise the contribution the day centre makes to palliative care in our community in supporting the wonderful work done by the palliative care centre at Mona Vale Hospital. The Pittwater Day Centre's palliative care cancer support group, which meets regularly on Tuesdays and is called the "happy palls" by its scrabble enthusiasts, is an outstanding example of the positive contribution that volunteer-based services make in our community. Another of the centre's great initiatives, which commences soon, is the outings group, which will be called the "socialites". They aim to arrange weekly day trips to scenic locations throughout Sydney. This is the next chapter in a great range of initiatives being undertaken by the centre in seeking to engage its participants in stimulating and enjoyable activities.
These are the very reasons that I was exceptionally pleased to be able to put forward the centre's volunteers as Pittwater's nomination for the 2010 New South Wales Carer of the Year Award. Their efforts in providing assistance to those members of our community in greatest need are thoroughly appreciated and truly deserving of the recognition this award bestows. With such wonderful people playing such an important role in our community, I am honoured to be able to bring their efforts to the attention of the House. On behalf of the Pittwater community I congratulate them on their outstanding and invaluable contribution to our community.
HOME POWER SAVINGS PROGRAM
Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [6.04 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of a constituent, Ms Cassandra Schmitzer, in relation to the difficulties she is having paying her Country Energy bill, which stands at around $6,000 and costs Ms Schmitzer about $1,500 a quarter. This is brought about by the fact her son Luca has an acute medical need that requires him to stay connected to an oxygen concentrator 24 hours a day. Ms Schmitzer has four children. Luca was born 3½ months premature and weighed just 0.8 kilograms. He has spent his life attending medical appointments. He must be attached to the oxygen concentrator to enable him to breathe. The fragility of his lungs is a result of his premature birth. Obviously this is creating incredible hardship for Ms Schmitzer in trying to pay her bills and, whilst Country Energy has tried to help in some ways, it is a never-ending cycle for her. I believe her problem needs special consideration. I will refer shortly to the Home Power Savings Program run by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water [DECCW], which has just carried out a survey of Ms Schmitzer's electricity needs.
At present all she is entitled to by way of rebates from Country Energy is a New South Wales Government energy rebate of about $34 and a life support oxygen concentrator rebate of $75. This really does not make a dent in the bill. I have written to the Minister for Disability Services and his office has contacted my office and has been very helpful, but we have not had a resolution of the matter. I also wrote to the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Health on 27 September but I have heard nothing at all from them. This matter has to be attended to because Luca will be using the concentrator for at least another three years and the power bills will not go away in that time.
Country Energy waived $1,584 off the account recently. I might add that this matter was brought to my attention because Dun and Bradstreet have been commissioned to try to recover the money. However, that amount has been waived in consultation with Country Energy. It is also entering into an agreement with Ms Schmitzer that if she is able to pay $80 per fortnight towards her energy use, Country Energy will match that amount for at least six months. That gives her some breathing space but the problem is not going to go away. I am making a two-pronged attack on this problem. First, I would like the Ministers I mentioned to address the issue and give Ms Schmitzer some long-term relief. It is through no fault of hers that she has incurred the bill. This is how the system works.
The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water did a power saving action plan for her under the Home Power Savings Program, but a fundamental problem with the action plan is that it does not take into account and measure any medical devices that are being used in the house. The sole problem is the oxygen concentrator. It has been said unofficially to us by the people who did the testing that the oxygen concentrator accounts for about 85 per cent of all Ms Schmitzer's electricity usage. DECCW sent her a one-page document that says if she cuts back on showers she will save $142 and if she gets rid of her second refrigerator, which she must have because she can only go shopping every so often, she will save about $330. If she lets the sun dry her washing rather than the clothes dryer she will save $368. However, what needs to be addressed is the energy consumed by the oxygen concentrator and the massive quarterly power account of about $1,500.
I am hoping we will get some responses from the Ministers I have mentioned and that this matter can be resolved to Ms Schmitzer's long-term benefit. I do not know whether that will occur. However, if the 27774 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water is going to do action plans, there should be provision for medical apparatus to be included in the plan. That could then trigger some action and enable the Ministers I have approached and the energy supplier to give real assistance where it is needed.
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [6.09 p.m.]: Today, 11 November 2010, is Remembrance Day—the day in 1918 when, at 11 o'clock, World War I came to an end. Some soldiers still died after the Armistice was officially agreed. World War I was known as the Great War until the 1939-1945 Second World War. It was "great" only in the sense of the size of the damage done; the number of soldiers, civilians, men, women and children who died; and the changes in Europe as a result of World War I. The unsatisfactory conclusion to World War I, the Russian Revolution and the Versailles Treaty led to the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, Stalin and the Communists, and the ramifications of the Great Depression led to World War II. Tonight I want to focus on the difficulties experienced by soldiers who fought this Great War, which in part explains why we still remember their sacrifice almost 96 years since the war began, and 92 years since the guns fell silent on the Western Front.
We member the Anzac soldiers who died in Gallipoli, at Fromelles, Villers-Bretonneux, Hamel, Pozieres, Bullecourt, Dernancourt, Ypres and Passchendaele, in Belgium, and on the Menin Road. The French have never forgotten our contribution on the Western Front. All members are aware that soldiers from nearly all of Europe, parts of Asia, Canada, the United States of America and South Africa also died. What united all these men was a sense of what they were doing for their country. Ironically, they were all fighting for their country, their God—mostly the same Christian God—and in the belief that they were all under attack and not the aggressors. The war began with men on all sides largely believing that their cause was noble. Rupert Brooke died of blood poisoning. His enthusiasm for the war was matched by these few lines in Peace—one of his most famous poems—in which he said:
Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour, And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping
The poem goes on to suggest that only those sick hearts and half men would not fulfil their duty. Famously, in 1915 John McCrae wrote:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
On the Western Front, battlefield soldiers had to deal with high explosive shells, grenades, barbed wire, machine guns, poison gas, rats as his big as Corgi dogs, trench foot, and mental and physical breakdown—which we all now know as shellshock—and, with the exception of the Australian Army, the possibility of death by firing squad for failing to attack the enemy, retreating without orders, or desertion. Australia's baptism of fire may have been Gallipoli, but it was on the Western Front where our contribution to eventual victory at great cost is rightly being recognised. Wilfred Owen, in the classic war poem Dulce et Decorum est, told the truth about war. In his poem he concluded:
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27775
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
Translated, that means it is sweet and beautiful to die for one's country. Of course it is not; it is better to try to live for one's country. Today we should remember the ultimate sacrifices of our soldiers. Before I conclude by quoting from the most famous part of For the Fallen, which was written by Lawrence Binyon, I point out that three times in the past four or five years my wife and I have visited the battle sites on the Western Front—in Belgium and in France. My wife, Linda, who works at Bankstown council, researched the soldiers in the Bankstown area who had paid the supreme price. We visited each cemetery and we placed a small wooden cross on their graves to commemorate their ultimate contribution to our country. It might seem a small gesture but I am sure that, in the tradition of Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, those efforts are appreciated by their relatives. In their own way, the servicemen of today continue to fight for freedom and for high ideals. I conclude with these words from the poem For the Fallen, which was written by Lawrence Binyon. The poem comprises four paragraphs, but this is the most famous paragraph of which all members would be aware:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Lest we forget. Those are the words that are uttered on Anzac Day and we uttered them again today at 11 o'clock. It is a tragedy that so many wars continue to be fought. On Remembrance Day people throughout the western world wear a poppy to remember 11 November 1918.
BURRUMBUTTOCK PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [6.14 p.m.]: Burrumbuttock Public School, a small primary school of only 28 students, is located in the small rural town of Burrumbuttock north of Albury. Over the past 15 years the school has become widely known for its remarkable achievements in environmental education and it has now won a $50,000 Schools First Award for its partnership with the Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre and the Murray-Darling Association. The school hosts 3,000 students each year in the Wirraminna rammed earth learning and discovery building to engage in cross-curriculum outdoor learning. It has played an integral part in the development of this community environmental education centre, assisting in the development of resources to support teaching about the Murray-Darling Basin, and promoting sustainability among students.
While the Burrumbuttock community itself has also been recognised for many achievements, including winning the New South Wales Tidy Towns Award in 2001, it is the school's consistency in leadership on sustainability that is truly remarkable. In 2003 the school was awarded the New South Wales Schools Environment Award for its outstanding work in providing environmental education opportunities for local schools, curriculum development for teachers, raising of awareness of conservation issues in the community and for its partnership with the volunteer-run Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre.
The Wirraminna Centre has been developed adjacent to the school. Naming it Wirraminna after an Aboriginal word meaning "peace and quiet near still waters", a visionary team of school and community volunteers transformed a four-hectare eyesore into an arboretum featuring local wildflowers and groundcovers, urban landscaping, and wattles. A series of wetland ponds were created and planted, remnants of local box woodlands were restored and Aboriginal medicinal and bush tucker plants are being incorporated. This highly acclaimed learning space or Learnscape encourages students and visitors to understand and tackle the environmental challenges of the twenty-first century. Countless hours of voluntary labour have gone into Wirraminna in the construction stages, maintenance and development of interpretative signs, DVDs and brochures. It is financed by government grants, corporate gifts and private donations, but its biggest long-term challenge is to secure funding for part-time staff.
The New South Wales State presentations for the Schools First Awards were conducted at the New South Wales Art Gallery on Wednesday 27 October, and Burrumbuttock was one of 16 schools across New South Wales to win a $50,000 Schools First Impact Award. Schools First is a national awards program pledging $15 million over three years to recognise and support effective school-community partnerships. It is sponsored 27776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 11 November 2010
by NAB in partnership with the Foundation for Young Australians and the Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], and aims for communities to become more involved in their local school and for a range of people to contribute to school learning.
In 2006 Burrumbuttock Public School, Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre and the Murray-Darling Association formed a partnership to develop resources for teaching and learning about the Murray-Darling Basin and to educate students about the importance of monitoring and improving the Murray River and its catchment. As a result of the partnership, the Living Murray project was developed and is being implemented in many schools, resulting in increased environmental awareness among both teachers and students. Resources such as posters, a workbook with accompanying DVD and a comic-style publication on river health are now being used in a primary curriculum unit across the State. A website has been set up enabling a wider target audience to access the resources online. In addition to this, a new display on native fish has been developed at Wirraminna to help students understand the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's Native Fish Strategy.
The environmental education resources are being studied by some schools in Europe and the information is accessed by universities, local governments, industry, researchers and community groups. Through the media interest in the project, students have gained greater communication skills and confidence with presentations in many locations, including here in this very Parliament. The partner organisation—the Murray-Darling Association—has gained enormously through the publicity and expanded knowledge base of the wider community. The Impact Award funds will be used to complete the teacher handbook which will guide teachers on natural resource issues when teaching the Living Murray unit and in engaging the students on excursions. The majority of the funds will be put towards the making of a DVD on threatened species in the Murray-Darling Basin. The school also has plans to develop a local Aboriginal studies program to show how Aboriginal people historically managed the landscape, and how these practices are consistent with existing natural resource management activities.
On 29 October the school held a community celebration attended by members of the Murray-Darling Association and many excited local residents. Over 80 people watched the business manager from the National Australia Bank, Mr Rod Peters, present a large $50,000 cheque and cut a huge cake for the students, parents and community members who have supported the school for so many years. Mr. Adrian Wells, regional manager for the Murray-Darling Association, which was Burrumbuttock Public School's partner in the award, noted that two Governors-General of the Commonwealth of Australia had visited the school—so it must be doing something special. I congratulate Owen Dunlop, the Principal of Burrumbuttock Public School, on his outstanding leadership and enthusiasm. I recognise also the magnificent work of Darryl Jacob, Sue Schilg, Maggie Watson and the host of volunteers who have helped to create Wirraminna and ensure that it is a living, learning environment.
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.19 p.m.]: To say the recently released Murray-Darling Basin Authority draft plan has been met with community uproar and outrage is an understatement. The plan may appear to tackle many environmental issues, but little consideration has been given to the socioeconomic impacts. The plan affects every Australian and can have grave impacts on the New South Wales economy as up to 40 per cent of our food bowl is under threat. Before I refer to the facts and figures, I make one point perfectly clear: farmers and businesses who depend on the Murray-Darling Basin are not environmental vandals. Many farmers have watched in dismay over the years as Government after Government has introduced laws to clear the land, increase productivity and, finally, issue unlimited water licenses with little, or no, consideration to the long-term impact on the basin.
Farmers and local businesses now are expected to pay the price for fixing these mistakes. As one farmer said at a protest rally, the Government's solution is like asking city people to give up a bedroom of their house to help overcrowding in the cities. While the Murray-Darling Basin Plan may be finalised at the Federal level, it will be left to the New South Wales Government to implement many of the new laws in this State. Therefore, it is in the interests of every member in this House to read the report and become familiar with the issues. Under the Guide to the Basin Plan, water consumption will be scaled back by up to 4,000 gigalitres, with reductions of up to 32 per cent from surface water and groundwater resources in the Macquarie-Castlereagh Basin for current extractive uses. In simple language, this means water currently licensed to towns and water-dependent industries, such as irrigation, will no longer be available to sustain these residents. 11 November 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27777
One main problem with the plan's scientific assumptions, as pointed out at the Dubbo forum, is that the guide realistically is only a snapshot in time and was formulated over a period of drought. If the plan is to be of any use, scientific data from normal seasons also should be included. The Mayor of Warren Shire Council, Rex Wilson, told the forum quite clearly that implementation of the guide in its current form would spell the death of his town, which was once a thriving rural centre. Any decrease in productivity has a domino effect—jobs are lost, businesses close, people move to the cities looking for jobs and towns die. Even worse, once proud, bustling centres become social security towns and those residents who remain have little hope for the future.
The Mayor of Narromine Shire Council, Bill McAnally, also raised an important point when he said irrigators and farmers are not environmental rapists. Indeed, they looked after the environment, and communities and government have to work in harmony with the environment to ensure everyone survives. One farmer from Narromine told the meeting that the State Government already had taken 90 per cent of his water allocation without giving any compensation, and any further reductions would spell the end of his farming activities. Sadly, this is not an isolated situation and many rural communities already have identified depression and suicide as some ongoing issues. The Government, and the broader community, cannot afford to ignore the overall affects of this guide only to wake up one day and discover that food in New South Wales has become so expensive people cannot afford their grocery bill.
I am sure everyone in this House is aware of the recently launched Evocities campaign to encourage people to move to major regional centres such as Dubbo. Dubbo is a city blessed with a bountiful water supply and a far-sighted council that has been environmentally conscious for many years, but even with its existing water efficiencies, the proposed water cuts could undermine Dubbo's future. Dubbo council's Director of Technical Services, Stewart McLeod, says water usage in Dubbo is 20 per cent lower than it was five years ago, yet the city has continued to grow. However, under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the council's water usage would be capped. This would mean that council either would have to spend millions of dollars buying up licences from irrigators, which would put them out of business, or cap growth.
Currently, council has enough water for a population of 55,000 residents, but the proposed cuts may reduce that figure. Clearly, it is counterproductive, and certainly not in the State's interest, to restrict growth and industry in regional New South Wales. The impost proposed on communities in the Macquarie-Castlereagh Basin is grossly unrealistic, particularly as only 13 per cent of inflows into the Macquarie River are assigned to irrigators—the lowest in the basin. The repercussions of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority guide will reverberate around Australia, and New South Wales in particular, for many years. It is important that we understand all the implications, not just the environmental considerations. Many members of Parliament in this House represent those areas affected by the decisions in this draft report. Certainly, my electorate of Dubbo is affected. We need to carefully consider the impact on the lives of those affected by a wrong decision.
Private members' statements concluded.
SURROGACY BILL 2010
Message received from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Legislative Assembly's amendments.
The House adjourned, pursuant to standing and sessional orders, at 6.24 p.m. until Friday 12 November at 10.00 a.m.
______